Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. B-7306,B-7306 |
| Parties | George J. CESHKER, Petitioner, v. BANKERS COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jackson D. Wilson, II, John O. MacAyeal, Dallas, for petitioner.
Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy & Baab, Oscar H. Mauzy, Dallas, for respondent.
George J. Ceshker instituted this suit against Bankers Commercial Life Insurance Company for alleged deceptive advertising and for damages that are authorized by section 16 of article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code. The court of civil appeals has ruled that the word "person" as used in sections 2 and 16(a) of article 21.21 of the Code means and is limited to one "engaged in the business of insurance." In affirming the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant, the court of civil appeals held that the plaintiff Ceshker did not have standing to sue and also that the summary judgment proofs showed as a matter of law that Ceshker was not adversely affected by the advertising. Tex.Civ.App., 558 S.W.2d 102.
We disapprove the holding which construed the Code to limit the term "person" to one who is engaged in the business of insurance. The judgment of the court is correct, however, for the other reason and we accordingly refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.P.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hermann Hosp. v. National Standard Ins. Co.
...statute does not require that the injured party be a person who is engaged in the business of insurance. Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co., 568 S.W.2d 128, 129 (Tex.1978). More recently, it held that the statute does not require the injured party be a consumer of goods or services......
-
Tweedell v. Hochheim Prairie Farm Mut. Ins. Ass'n
...16 was not limited to "one engaged in the business of insurance" as stated in section 2. Id. (citing Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co., 568 S.W.2d 128, 129 (Tex.1978)). However, the court refused to extend "the construction of 'person' beyond one who is either an insured or a bene......
-
Chaffin v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
...used in section 16 is not to be construed as being limited to one "engaged in the business of insurance." Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co., 568 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.1978). Nevertheless, we find no authority for extending the construction of "person" beyond one who is either an insured......
-
Lone Star Life Ins. Co. v. Griffin
...this case. Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co., 558 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1977), writ ref'd n. r. e., Per curiam, 568 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.1978), found the Supreme Court repudiating a holding that "One must be 'engaged in the business of insurance' to bring suit under art. 21.21......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...or that a per son bringing suit pursuant to §16 must qualify as a consumer as de fined in the DTPA. Ceshker v. Bankers Comm’l Life Co., 568 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. 1978) ( per curiam ). This is another per curiam opinion in which the Su preme Court disapproved of a lower court holding which would ......
-
Chapter 5-2 Unfair Insurance Practices—Deceptive Insurance Practices
...§ 541.155(d).[38] Tex. Ins. Code Ann. § 541.151.[39] Tex. Ins. Code Ann. § 541.002(2); see Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co., 568 S.W.2d 128, 129 (Tex. 1978).[40] Chaffin v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 731 S.W.2d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.).[41] Al......