header

Important New Cases

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007): the U.S. Supreme Court may have altered decades of federal pleading practice. This case must be understood by anyone pleading in federal court. Its impact is evident in the fact that it has been cited more frequently in the first few months after supremeCourtpublication than any other previous case in history during the same time period.

  2. Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 246 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008): The Texas Supreme Court held that it is not a violation of public policy for insurance companies to insure punitive damage exposure at least in the context of a worker’s compensation and employer’s liability policy. This holding is limited, however, by "[e]xtreme circumstances" where "extreme and avoidable conduct” causes injury. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Res-Care, Inc., No. 04-20389, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11758 (5th Cir. Tex. June 2, 2008).

  3. In re SCI Tex. Funeral Servs., 236 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. 2007) the Texas Supreme Court strictly held all precertification discovery in putative class action claims to that class discovery needed for certification purposes.stateFlag

  4. In Med. City Dallas, Ltd. v. Carlisle Corp., 251 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. 2008) the Texas Supreme Court held that a claim for breach of an express warranty is a breach of contract claim so that recovery of attorneys’ fees is available under Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 38.001.

  5. In Excess Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. 2008) the Texas Supreme Court signaled the end of any equitable right to reimbursement on the part Texas insurers against their insureds.

  6. In PAJ, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 243 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. 2008) the Texas Supreme Court held that the failure to timely notify an insurer of a claim or suit does not defeat coverage if the insurer was not prejudiced by the delay.

Copyright 2005 Project Seven Development