Hi-Line Elec. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Companies, HI-LINE
| Decision Date | 30 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8893,HI-LINE,B-8893 |
| Parties | ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANIES, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
John D. Griggs, Dallas, for petitioner.
Timothy R. McCormick, Dallas, for respondents.
The application for writ of error is refused with the notation no reversible error. Our action should not be interpreted as approving the conclusion of the court of civil appeals that a private action under article 21.21 of the Insurance Code must be based on the Deceptive Trade Practices Act nor as approving the court's holding that, "A 'person' as used in article 21.21(16) (a) must be a consumer as defined in section 17.50 of the DTPA . . . ." 587 S.W.2d at 490.
Article 21.21, § 16 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Any person who has been injured by another's engaging in any of the practices declared in Section 4 of this Article or in rules or regulations lawfully adopted by the Board under this Article to be unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance or in any practice defined by Section 17.46 of the Business & Commerce Code, as amended, as an unlawful deceptive trade practice may maintain an action against the company or companies engaging in such acts or practices.
(b) In a suit filed under this section, any plaintiff who prevails may obtain:
(1) three times the amount of actual damages plus court costs and attorneys' fees reasonable in relation to the amount of work expended;
(2) an order enjoining such acts or failure to act;
(3) any other relief which the court deems proper. (emphasis added).
See Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Bar Consultants, Inc., 577 S.W.2d 688, 691 (Tex.1979).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc.
...Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (1980), and Russell v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 548 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Section 17.45(4) defines c......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kelly
...art. 21.21 confers a cause of action under Section 17.46(a) of the DTPA independent of DTPA. See also Hi-line Electric Company v. Travelers Ins. Companies, 593 S.W.2d 953, 954 (Tex.1980). Allstate contends that Section 16 of art. 21.21 provides no cause of action for violation of 17.46(a), ......
-
North Star Dodge Sales, Inc. v. Luna
...Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Traveler's Insurance Co., 587 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1979), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 593 S.W.2d 953 (Tex.1980). A consumer is an individual who seeks or acquires goods or services by purchase or lease. § Appellee first learned of the money back gu......
-
Guerra v. Brumlow
...dism'd); Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 587 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1979, writ ref'd n. r. e.) (per curiam), 593 S.W.2d 953 (Tex.1980). In Cameron however, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Hi-Line Electric Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., supra, and Barthlow v. Metcalf......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...The insur ance company was accountable for any misrepresentations made by the agent. Hi-Line Elec. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Companies, 593 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. 1980) ( per curiam ). In this per curiam opinion the Court made clear that its action in refusing the application for writ of error n.r.e.......