Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Cullen/Frost Bank of Dallas, N.A.

Texas Supreme Court

Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Cullen/Frost Bank of Dallas, N.A.

889 S.W.2d 266, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 799, 1994 Tex. LEXIS 72

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1994

DocketD-3782

StatusPublished

This text of 889 S.W.2d 266 (Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Cullen/Frost Bank of Dallas, N.A.) 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

Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Cullen/Frost Bank of Dallas, N.A., 889 S.W.2d 266, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 799, 1994 Tex. LEXIS 72 (Tex. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this declaratory judgment action, Cullen/Frost Bank (bank) sued Commonwealth Lloyds Insurance Company and United States Fire Insurance Company (insurers) for a determination of the insurers’ duty to defend the bank under five commercial general liability insurance policies. The underlying suit involves claims for recision, negligent. misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. §§ 17.41-17.68 (Vernon 1986 & Supp.1994), by several condominium owners who purchased them condominiums from the bank.

The trial court granted the insurers’ motions for summary judgment, which the court of appeals reversed, 852 S.W.2d 252. We granted the insurers’ applications for writ of error, but a majority of the court now withdraws our order granting the writ and denies the insurers’ applications for writ of error. In doing so, we neither approve nor disapprove of the opinion of the court of appeals.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this declaratory judgment action, Cullen/Frost Bank (bank) sued Commonwealth Lloyds Insurance Company and United States Fire Insurance Company (insurers) for a determination of the insurers’ duty to defend the bank under five commercial general liability insurance policies. The underlying suit involves claims for recision, negligent. misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. §§ 17.41-17.68 (Vernon 1986 & Supp.1994), by several condominium owners who purchased them condominiums from the bank.

The trial court granted the insurers’ motions for summary judgment, which the court of appeals reversed, 852 S.W.2d 252. We granted the insurers’ applications for writ of error, but a majority of the court now withdraws our order granting the writ and denies the insurers’ applications for writ of error. In doing so, we neither approve nor disapprove of the opinion of the court of appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

889 S.W.2d 266, 37 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 799, 1994 Tex. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-lloyds-insurance-co-v-cullenfrost-bank-of-dallas-na-tex-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack