Teweleit v. Hartford Life & Acci

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 9, 1996
Docket95-20957
StatusUnpublished

This text of Teweleit v. Hartford Life & Acci (Teweleit v. Hartford Life & Acci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Teweleit v. Hartford Life & Acci, (5th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20957

VICTORIA TEWELEIT, Plaintiff,

versus

HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Cross Defendant- Cross Claimant-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL GROUP BENEFITS RISK POOL, Defendant-Cross Claimant- Cross Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-H-91-171)

June 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We are not persuaded that Hartford owes indemnity to TML.

* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. Common law indemnity in Texas is narrowly limited to those

situations involving vicarious liability or an innocent retailer.

Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663 S.W.2d 816, 819-20 (Tex.

1984). TML's liability to Victoria Teweleit does not fit within

either category. To the contrary, TML's liability to Teweleit was

independent of Hartford's.

Similarly, we are not persuaded that Hartford owes TML

indemnity under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. See Tex.

Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.555. Section 17.555 incorporates

existing principles of contribution and indemnity law, including

the limitation to situations involving vicarious liability and the

innocent retailer, into DTPA cases. See Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S.

Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 446 (Tex. 1989). Neither Swafford v.

View-Caps Water Supply Corp., 617 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1981), nor Saenz

Motors v. Big H Auto Auction, Inc., 653 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. Civ. App.-

-Corpus Christi 1983), aff'd, 665 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1984), are to

the contrary. Since TML is not entitled to common law indemnity,

it is not entitled to DTPA indemnity.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Big H Auto Auction, Inc. v. Saenz Motors
665 S.W.2d 756 (Texas Supreme Court, 1984)
Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp.
772 S.W.2d 442 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
Swafford v. View-Caps Water Supply Corp.
617 S.W.2d 674 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Saenz Motors v. Big H. Auto Auction, Inc.
653 S.W.2d 521 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
663 S.W.2d 816 (Texas Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Teweleit v. Hartford Life & Acci, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teweleit-v-hartford-life-acci-ca5-1996.