Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance v. Griffin

26 citing decisions · 22 quoted from the citing opinion itself

Where each one reaches back.

Every passage below is lifted verbatim out of the citing opinion, with the citation itself highlighted. Nothing here is a summary and nothing is generated — it is what the later court actually wrote.

• Tapia2026-01-21
  …53 Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Tex. 1997) (citing Am. Alliance Ins. Co. v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 788 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990)). 54 Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex 1997) (“[T]he duty to indemnify is justiciable before the insured’s liability is determined in the liability lawsuit when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.”).…
• Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Ericsson Inc.2025-08-18
  …has no duty to indemnify defendants because, here, “the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility” that Plaintiff “will ever have a duty to indemnify” (Dkt. #15 at p. 5 (quoting Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997))). As explained below, the Court agrees with Defendants. Currently, the duty to indemnify is not ripe. Under Texas law, the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct. See D.R. Horton- Texas, Ltd. v. Markel Intern. Ins. Co., Ltd., 300 S.W.3d 740, 743–44 (Tex. 2009). Under the “…
• Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. West Dallas Investments LP2025-07-22
  …Legal Standard for an Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify The duty to indemnify is based on the actual facts developed in the underlying suit, rather than the factual allegations in the pleadings. Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997). While “the duty to indemnify is generally not ascertainable until after the insured has been held liable, it is justiciable prior to a finding of liability when the same reasons negating the duty to defend also negate any duty to indemnify.” Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Aisha’s Learning Ctr., 468 F.3d 857, 858–59 (5th Cir. 2…
• Sneed2025-07-11
  …extension, under Plaintiff’s interpretation of Texas law, the reasons negating any potential duty to defend similarly negate any potential duty to indemnify (Dkt. #21 at pp. 5–6; Dkt. #21 at pp. 10–11) (citing Farmers Texas Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (establishing that where the underlying pleadings affirmatively negate coverage, courts may adjudicate the duty to indemnify alongside the duty to defend). The Bonaparte Defendants respond that it is premature to decide the duty to indemnify (Dkt. #23 at p. 10). While Texas law…
• Smallwood2025-06-09
  …fend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify,” a court may rule on both at once. LCS Corr. Servs., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 800 F.3d 664, 668-69 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam)). Because the Worker Injury exclusion precludes coverage 2Even if, as alleged by Smallwood in its response, I&A is not an insured based on the pleadings below, Mr. Peguero would still be employed by a contractor, subcontractor, or independent contractor “for which the insured may become liable.” See F&H, 2…
• Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. West Dallas Investments LP2025-04-22
  …Legal Standard for an Insurer’s Duty to Indemnify The duty to indemnify is based on the actual facts developed in the underlying suit, rather than the factual allegations in the pleadings. Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997). While “the duty to indemnify is generally not ascertainable until after the insured has been held liable, it is justiciable prior to a finding of liability when the same reasons negating the duty to defend also negate any duty to indemnify.” Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Aisha’s Learning Ctr., 468 F.3d 857, 858–59 (5th Cir. 2…
• Accident Insurance Company Inc v. Pedro Velazquez2025-04-15
  …n in the district court of the underlying lawsuit, and ORDERS the parties to file a status report every six months from the date of this order. As a result, the Court FINDS AS MOOT the motion to abate. 5 Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997). 6 Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. DP Eng’g, L.L.C., 827 F.3d 423, 430 (5th Cir. 2016). IV. Motions to Extend Time to Mediate and Continue Because the Court vacates the deadlines, the Court FINDS AS MOOT the motions to extend time to mediate and the motion to continue. V.…
• Bayles2025-03-28
  …t the duty to indemnify cannot exist in the absence of a duty to defend. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc., 75 F.4th 522, 535 (5th Cir. 2023). However, the Texas Supreme Court held in Farmers Texas Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) that: [T]the duty to indemnify is justiciable before the insured's liability is determined in the liability lawsuit when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify. (emphasis in ori…
• Key Allegro Condominiums, Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v. Progressive Fire & Flood, Inc.2025-03-21
  …nt action in New York. However, Nautilus’s New York action was limited to determining whether its policy required a defense. Under Texas law, insurers are permitted to seek declaratory relief on coverage issues. Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997). This narrow exception does not extend liability determinations to claimants like Allegro, who seek to establish an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify in advance of a liability determined against the insured. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Allegro lacks standing to pursue its claims against Nautil…
• Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. North Tarrant Infrastructure, LLC2025-03-19
  …Griffin, which establishes an exception to this general rule, to argue that that it is impossible for any set of facts to develop that would implicate coverage under the Policy, and thus, the Court can declare that Plaintiff has no duty to indemnify now.25 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (holding no duty to indemnify because “[n]o facts c[ould] be developed in the underlying tort suit that c[ould] transform a drive-by shooting into an ‘auto accident’”). But the Fifth Circuit and Texas Supreme Court have cautioned against the “over- application” of Griffin. Liberty Mut. Fire I…
• St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. LP Operating, LLC2025-02-27
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Century Surety Company v. RTI Services, LLC2025-02-24
  …dgment); Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Standard Concrete Prods., Inc., 737 F.3d 365, 372 (5th Cir. 2013) (recognizing Texas rule considering justiciability of duty to indemnify prior to resolution of underlying action). 16 Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997). 17 See id. (emphasis in original). 18 Response at 5. the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin! is ADOPTED IN PART, solely as to its conclusion to dismiss the…
• Willow Bridge Property Company LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company2024-12-27
  …udgment regarding its duty to indemnify “when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.” Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted); see also Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Breaux, 368 F.Supp.2d 604, 620 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (“[I]t is now settled in Texas that a justiciable controversy exists such that an insurer’s duty to indemnify an insured may be determined before a judgment is obtained in the underlying lawsuit.”). This is such a cas…
• DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (US Branch) v. Load Runners Logistics, Inc.2024-10-15
  …insured’s liability is determined . . . when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.” Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (emphasis in original). Several courts have held that an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify based on employee exclusions that were identical or substantially similar to the “Employee Indemnification and Employer’s Liability” exclusion at issue here. See, e.g., Am. Sentinel Ins. Co. v. AR Xpress, LLC, No. 7:20-CV…
• Greyhound Lines Inc v. Western Trails Charters & Tours LLC2024-07-24
  …nderlying lawsuit is resolved applies “when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.” Farmers Texas Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997). This exception does not apply here because SLE did not move to dismiss on grounds that it does not have a duty to defend Greyhound in the Dallas County Litigation. See id. arises after an insured has been adjudicated, whether by judgment or settlement, to be legally resp…
• Acceptance Casualty Insurance Company v. Budget Suites, Inc.2024-05-13
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• FCCI Insurance Company v. Easy Mix Concrete Services, LLC2024-05-07
  …indemnify, since further factual development in the underlying cases may reveal that something other than ASR caused the concrete damage. The Texas Supreme Court provided some guidance on this issue in Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. 1997). There, gunshots from a passing vehicle hit and injured an individual as he was walking down the street. Id. at 82. The driver of the car, whose two passengers fired the shots, sought defense and indemnification from his auto insurer. Id. The insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify because the in…
• Rodriguez2024-03-30
  …300 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. 2009) (collecting cases). There is an exception to Texas law’s wait-and-see approach in determining the duty to defend—the so-called “Griffin” exception. See Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. 1997). In Griffin, the Supreme Court of Texas stated that a court can determine the duty to indemnify “when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.” Id. at 84 (emphasis in original). Here, the Court…
• Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. GRIF, LLC2024-01-31
  …s determined in the liability lawsuit when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.” Farmers Texas Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (emphasis in original). III. DISCUSSION This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), as Plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, and Defendants are c…
• Meritage Homes of Texas, LLC v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company2024-01-18
  …expressed in the contract.” Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins., 640 S.W.3d 195, 199 (Tex. 2022). “An insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify are distinct and separate duties.” Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Tex. 1997). An insurer may have a duty to defend a lawsuit but not a duty to indemnify the insured. Id. On the other hand, an insurer may not have to defend a lawsuit but eventually may have a duty to indemnify. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. DP Eng’g, L.L.C., 827 F.3d 423, 430 (5th Cir. 2016). These duties can arise independently of one a…
• Orta-Gonzalez2023-11-13
  …t Orta-Gonzalez ripe for adjudication. 2. Duty to Indemnify Texas law, generally, considers a question on the duty to indemnify justiciable only after the underlying lawsuit. Id. at 529 (citing Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997)). The Supreme Court of Texas created an exception to this rule in Griffin, holding “the duty to indemnify is justiciable before the insured’s liability is determined in the [underlying] lawsuit when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insur…
• Choi2023-07-25
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Ohio Security Insurance Company v. Ingenero, Inc.2023-07-13
  …ourt disagrees and holds that this issue is not ripe for adjudication. “An insurer’s duty to defend and duty to indemnify are distinct and separate duties.” Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). “While analysis of the duty to defend has been strictly circumscribed by the eight-corners doctrine, it is well settled that the ‘facts actually established in the underlying suit control the duty to indemnify.’” D.R. Horton-Tex., Ltd. v. Markel Int’l Ins. Co., Ltd., 300 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. 200…
• Kinsale Insurance Company v. Flyin' Diesel Performance & Offroad, LLC2023-03-31
  …insurer’s duty to indemnify typically can be resolved to defend and the same reasons that negate the duty to defend likewise negate any possibility the insurer will ever have a duty to indemnify.’” Id. (quoting Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997) (emphasis omitted)). In those circumstances, courts may resolve the duty to indemnify at summary judgment. Id. Although some courts have noted that “the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify,” that does not mean that “there can be no duty to indemnify absent a duty to defend.” Colony Ins. Co. v. Peachtree Const…
• Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company v. Whitfield & Breitigam Enterprises LLC2023-03-30
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Crimson Building Company LLC2023-02-24
  …uty to indemnify generally cannot be ascertained until the completion of litigation, when liability is established, if at all.” Colony Ins. Co. v. Peachtree Constr. Ltd., 647 F.3d 248, 253 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1997)). Texas recognizes an exception to this general rule. See Griffin, 955 S.W.2d at 84. “[T]he duty to indemnify is justiciable before the insured’s liability is determined in the liability lawsuit when the insurer has no duty to defend and the same reasons t…