Bonded Realty, Inc. v. St. Paul Insurance Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Bonded Realty, Inc. v. St. Paul Insurance Co.

583 S.W.2d 619, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 464, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 311

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 1979

DocketB-8392

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 583 S.W.2d 619 (Bonded Realty, Inc. v. St. Paul Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonded Realty, Inc. v. St. Paul Insurance Co., 583 S.W.2d 619, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 464, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 311 (Tex. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question on appeal is whether deceptive trade practices are covered under a liability insurance policy which excluded coverage for “dishonesty, intentional fraud, criminal or malicious acts.” The trial court granted summary judgment for the insured. The Court of Civil Appeals has reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for St. Paul Insurance Company. *620 It held that deceptive trade practices are “unlawful” and are excluded from coverage under the policy. 578 S.W.2d 191.

We agree with the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals, but do not agree that all “unlawful” acts are necessarily excluded from coverage under this policy.

Petitioner urges that only those deceptive trade practices found by the jury at the former trial to be knowing or intentional misrepresentations should be excluded from coverage. Though petitioner’s knowledge of the falsity of one of the acts was not established, that act was inseparable from the other acts where knowledge of the falsity was established and was a concurrent cause of the damage sustained. Accordingly, we refuse the writ no reversible error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The question on appeal is whether deceptive trade practices are covered under a liability insurance policy which excluded coverage for “dishonesty, intentional fraud, criminal or malicious acts.” The trial court granted summary judgment for the insured. The Court of Civil Appeals has reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for St. Paul Insurance Company. *620 It held that deceptive trade practices are “unlawful” and are excluded from coverage under the policy. 578 S.W.2d 191.

We agree with the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals, but do not agree that all “unlawful” acts are necessarily excluded from coverage under this policy.

Petitioner urges that only those deceptive trade practices found by the jury at the former trial to be knowing or intentional misrepresentations should be excluded from coverage. Though petitioner’s knowledge of the falsity of one of the acts was not established, that act was inseparable from the other acts where knowledge of the falsity was established and was a concurrent cause of the damage sustained. Accordingly, we refuse the writ no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 S.W.2d 619, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 464, 1979 Tex. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonded-realty-inc-v-st-paul-insurance-co-tex-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack