Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Austin

Texas Supreme Court

Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Austin

105 S.W.3d 609, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 769, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 76, 2003 WL 21292900

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 5, 2003

DocketNo. 02-0100

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 S.W.3d 609 (Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Austin) 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

Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Austin, 105 S.W.3d 609, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 769, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 76, 2003 WL 21292900 (Tex. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motion for rehearing. We withdraw our opinion of February 6, 2003, and substitute the following in its place.

We deny the petition for review. The court of appeals concluded that Timothy Austin’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is not barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Austin, 65 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 2001). We agree. See, e.g., Am. Cas. Co. v. Martin, 97 S.W.3d 679, 684-85 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet. h.); Cigna Ins. Co. v. Evans, 847 S.W.2d 417, 422-23 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, no writ); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pettyjohn, 816 S.W.2d 839, 841-42 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991, no writ). To reach its decision, however, the court of appeals held that Texas Labor Code section 409.009 abrogated the doctrine in workers’ compensation cases where group health insurance is also involved. 65 S.W.3d at 373. But the court did not need to reach that holding to decide this case. See, e.g., Bocanegra v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 605 S.W.2d 848, 851-52 (Tex.1980). Consequently, we do not reach the merits of the court of appeals’ holding and leave open the question of whether section 409.009 abrogates the election-of-remedies doctrine.

Petition denied.

Justice WAINWRIGHT did not participate in the decision.

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

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motion for rehearing. We withdraw our opinion of February 6, 2003, and substitute the following in its place.

We deny the petition for review. The court of appeals concluded that Timothy Austin’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is not barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Austin, 65 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 2001). We agree. See, e.g., Am. Cas. Co. v. Martin, 97 S.W.3d 679, 684-85 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet. h.); Cigna Ins. Co. v. Evans, 847 S.W.2d 417, 422-23 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, no writ); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pettyjohn, 816 S.W.2d 839, 841-42 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991, no writ). To reach its decision, however, the court of appeals held that Texas Labor Code section 409.009 abrogated the doctrine in workers’ compensation cases where group health insurance is also involved. 65 S.W.3d at 373. But the court did not need to reach that holding to decide this case. See, e.g., Bocanegra v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 605 S.W.2d 848, 851-52 (Tex.1980). Consequently, we do not reach the merits of the court of appeals’ holding and leave open the question of whether section 409.009 abrogates the election-of-remedies doctrine.

Petition denied.

Justice WAINWRIGHT did not participate in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.W.3d 609, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 769, 2003 Tex. LEXIS 76, 2003 WL 21292900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valley-forge-insurance-co-v-austin-tex-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack