Bradleys' Electric v. Cigna Lloyds Ins. Co.
| Citation | 995 S.W.2d 675 |
| Parties | (Tex. 1999) BRADLEYS' ELECTRIC, INC., PETITIONER v. CIGNA LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND TEXAS PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, RESPONDENTS NO. 98-0773 |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1999 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
The question in this case is whether the court of appeals erred by remanding the case to the trial court without considering and deciding an issue upon which it could have rendered judgment. This case is an insurance duty to defend and duty to indemnify case. In the underlying action, Copeland Corporation accused Bradleys' Electric, Inc. of violating several of its patents. Bradleys' Electric sells "DISCUS" repair part kits for the repair of the valve plate assemblies of compressors patented and sold by Copeland. Copeland charged that Bradleys' Electric was a contributory patent infringer because these repair kits may be used by purchasing customers to remanufacture Copeland compressors. Bradleys' Electric sought coverage from its primary insurance carrier, Cigna Lloyds Insurance Company, under the advertising injury provision of its insurance contract. Cigna Lloyds refused to cover Bradleys' Electric's claim and filed a declaratory judgment action in a Harris County district court. Bradleys' Electric filed a counterclaim, arguing that Cigna Lloyds has a duty to defend and a duty to indemnify it against damages. Bradleys' Electric also filed a third party petition joining its umbrella insurance carriers, United National Insurance Company and Texas Pacific Indemnity Company. Bradleys' Electric also successfully challenged venue in Harris County.
After a transfer of venue from Harris to Nueces County, the trial court granted Bradleys' Electric's motion for summary judgment against all three insurance companies on the grounds that the advertising injury section of the insurance contracts covered patent infringement claims. The insurance companies appealed, raising two points of error. First, they challenged the trial court's judgment that they had a duty to defend Bradleys' Electric in the underlying patent infringement suit. Second, they challenged the transfer of venue from the Harris County district court. The first point would result in a rendition of judgment in their favor, while the second would result in a remand in their favor.
In its initial opinion, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment for the insurance companies, holding that the advertising injury sections of the insurance policies did not cover patent infringement claims. On Bradleys' Electric's motion for rehearing, which did not raise the venue issue, the court of appeals withdrew its original opinion and reversed and remanded the case to Harris County, holding that the venue transfer was erroneous. 993 S.W.2d 673. Both parties filed petitions for review in this Court. Bradleys' Electric argued that the court of appeals erred in remanding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.B.
...issue, we must first address Spencer's issues which would afford her the greatest relief. See Bradleys' Elec., Inc. v. Cigna Lloyds Ins. Co., 995 S.W.2d 675, 677 (Tex.1999) (per curiam); Monsanto Co. v. Davis, 25 S.W.3d 773, 780 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. dism'd w.o.j.). 3. Spencer contends ......
-
State v. Seats
...the appellate court should first address those points that would afford the party the greatest relief.” Bradleys' Elec., Inc. v. Cigna Lloyds Ins. Co., 995 S.W.2d 675, 677 (Tex.1999) ; cf. Boykins v. Shinseki, No. 13–0942, 2014 WL 840096, at *5 (Vet.App. Mar. 5, 2014) (“Given that the Court......
-
Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Grant
... 73 S.W.3d 211 ... SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, ... Mur Lee GRANT, Respondent ... ...
-
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Pool
...and resolved and that a judgment moving the case to the greatest degree of finality must be rendered. We held in Bradleys' Electric, Inc. v. Cigna Lloyds Insurance Co. that when a party presents multiple grounds for reversal of a judgment on appeal, appellate courts should first address iss......