National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Industries, Inc

26 citing decisions · 21 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.

• Takata2026-02-27
  …nal subcontractor. In construing a written contract, the Court’s main duty is to ascertain the parties’ intent expressed within the four corners of the document. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). The Court must harmonize the entire instrument by considering every provision. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). A term in a contract is ambiguous if its meaning is susceptible to 1 The price list provides rates for: Senior Project Manager, Project Manager, Operations Manager, Health/ Safety Of…
• Shah2026-01-23
  …urt's primary purpose is always to ascertain the true intent of the parties as expressed in the written instrument.” Gregg & Valby, L.L.P. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 316 F.Supp.2d 505, 508 (S.D. Tex. 2004) (citing Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)). Whether an ambiguity exists in the language of an insurance contract is a question of law for the court to determine. Kelley– Coppedge, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 980 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex. 1998). Therefore, if the con- tract can be given “a definite or certain legal meaning,” then it is unambiguous and may be en- forced a…
• Alorica Inc. v. Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.2025-08-28
  …83 (Tex. 1996). An “ambiguity must become evident when the contract is read in context of the surrounding circumstances, not after parol evidence of intent is admitted to create an ambiguity.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 521 (Tex. 1995). One of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule is that if the written instrument itself shows to be either ambiguous or incomplete, parol testimony is admissible to show what the real contract was to the extent necessary to remove the ambiguity, and to make the contract complete in its terms which show to be incomplete…
• Shintech Incorporated v. Olin Corporation2025-08-18
  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.
• 20100 Eastex, LLC v. Saltgrass, Inc.2025-07-21
  …“The primary concern of a court in construing a written contract is to ascertain the true intent of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). “An unambiguous contract will be enforced as written, and parol evidence will not be received for the purpose of creating an ambiguity or to give the contract a meaning different from that which its language imports.” David J. Sacks, P.C. v. Haden, 266 S.W.3d 447, 450 (Tex. 2008). “Only where a contract is fir…
• Blue Compass RV LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company2025-07-10
  …ting the same provision). “Courts usually strive for uniformity in construing insurance provisions, especially where . . . the contract provisions at issue are identical across the jurisdictions.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 522 (Tex. 1995). “Thus, when no Texas court has interpreted a particular provision, [the Court] look[s] to the courts of other states for guidance” as to how Texas courts may interpret the provision. Lynch Props., Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co. of Ill., 140 F.3d 622, 626 (5th Cir. 1998). The Court is aware of one other case interpreting an ins…
• Crow Family Inc v. Allied World Assurance Company Ltd2025-05-12
  …Cir. Aug. 11, 2022). “Courts usually strive for uniformity in construing insurance provisions, especially where, as here, the contract provisions at issue are identical across the jurisdictions.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 522 (Tex. 1995). “Thus, when no Texas court has interpreted a particular provision, [the Court] look[s] to the courts of other states for guidance as to how the Texas Supreme Court might interpret an issue.” Lynch Props., Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co. of Ill., 140 F.3d 622, 626 (5th Cir. 1998). The Court finds Golden Corral persuasive. The…
• Capitol Aggregates, Inc. v. IPEC, Inc.2025-05-08
  …ne Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 35 S.W.3d 658, 665 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). In construing the con- tract, the Court attempts to ascertain the parties' true intent “as expressed in the instrument.” Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). The Court presumes the parties intended for every clause to have some effect. Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996). The Court gives terms their plain, ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the instrument shows that the parties used them in a technical or different sense. Id.…
• Diaz2025-04-24
  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.
• HF Sinclair Refining & Marketing LLC v. NextEra Energy Marketing LLC2025-04-17
  …8 Fischer v. CTMI, L.L.C., 479 S.W.3d 231, 239 (Tex. 2016) (cleaned up). 9 Id. (cleaned up). 10 Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). 11 Am. Nat. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 274 F.3d 319, 323 (5th Cir.2001) (citing Puckett v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 678 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex. 1984)). gas in the area were not disrupted.”12 And NextEra points out its notice to Sinclair “described a wide-scale interruption, and not merely interrupti…
• Hanson2025-04-09
  …Co. v. Moak, 55 F.3d 1093, 1095 (5th Cir. 1995). In Texas, insurance contracts are subject to normal rules of contract construction. Carrizales v. State Farm Lloyds, 518 F.3d 343, 345-46 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)); Barnett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 723 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex. 1987). Texas courts construe the language according to “the ordinary, everyday meaning of the words to the general public.” Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744, 746 (Tex. 2006). The focus of construction is to ascertain the parties' intent as expressed in t…
• DiBassie2025-03-31
  …meaning.”). When a contract is ambiguous, the Court may consider the parties’ interpretations and admit extraneous parol evidence to determine the true meaning of the instrument. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Industries, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). DiBassie bases her argument that the Agreement is unambiguous on the Agreement’s mention of an “Exhibit A attached hereto.” (Dkt. 14 at pp. 23–24). “Exhibit A” purportedly sets forth an ownership distribution of 25% for Reeves and 75% for Emilynn. (Dkt. 14 at p. 24). However, the circumstance…
• VariChem International, Inc v. Riddle's Delhi & Chemical Service Co, Inc2025-03-14
  …consider extrinsic evidence. Angus Chem. Co. v. Glendora Plantation, Inc., 782 F.3d 175, 182 (Sth Cir. 2015). A contract is unambiguous if it can be given a definite or certain meaning as a matter of law. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). “An ambiguity does not arise simply because the parties advance conflicting interpretations of the contract.” Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Tex. 1996) (citing Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Tex. 1994)). Rather, an ambiguity exists only i…
• Shintech Incorporated v. Olin Corporation2025-01-27
  …act. A latent ambiguity arises when a contract which is unambiguous on its face is applied to the subject matter with which it deals and an ambiguity appears by reason of some collateral matter.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). Defendants do not explicitly admit that the VCM Contract is patently unambiguous, though that is the implication of Defendants’ argument that this court consider “extrinsic evidence to identify a latent ambiguity.” Dkt. 356 at 17. Shintech seems to believe that Defendants’ concession regarding the VCM Contract’s patent un…
• Corval Builders & Erectors, Inc2024-09-30
  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.
• National Union Fire Insurance Co of Pittsburgh PA v. RealPage Inc2024-09-05
  …meant.” Thompson v. Geico Ins. Agency, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 641, 644 (Tex. App.—Houston [14h Dist.] 2017, no pet.). If the policy language is ambiguous, meaning it is “subject to two or more reasonable interpretations,” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995) (citations omitted), the Court “must adopt the interpretation favoring the insured.” Cooper Indus., Ltd. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 876 F.3d 119, 128 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). In this case, the parties dispute the scope of the term “any recoveries” in the ARP. Because “any recoveries” is undefined, the Co…
• Pamela Dubier, as Trustee of the Pamela Joy Dubier 2011 Revocable Trust v. Triangle Capital Properties LLC2024-06-05
  …“Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court to decide.” Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 211 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)); Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc., 574 S.W.3d at 889 (quoting Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 394). The determination of the ambiguity of a contract “is a legal question decided by examining the entire contract in light of the circumstances present when the parties entered the contract.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Vaughan, 968 S.W.2d 93…
• Wyndham Properties II, Ltd. v. Buca Texas Restaurants, L.P.2024-05-02
  …c. v. VASP Brazilian Airlines, 278 F.3d 494, 497 (5th Cir. 2002)). A contract is unambiguous if it is so worded that it can be given a certain or definite legal meaning or interpretation. Id. (citing Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitts. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)). Summary judgment is appropriate in a case involving the interpretation of an unambiguous contract. Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 393. When no ambiguities are found, a court discerns the contracting parties’ true intent by looking only within the four co…
• Vigce LLC v. Level Eleven LLC2024-05-01
  …t to decide by looking at the contract as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the -16- contract was entered. See Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). If a written contract is so worded that it can be given a definite or certain legal meaning, it is not ambiguous. See Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). “A contract is ambiguous ‘if its p…
• Rodriguez2024-03-30
  …rance policies are controlled by rules of interpretation and construction which are applicable to contracts generally.” Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 597 S.W.3d 492, 497 (Tex. 2020) (quoting Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)). “In construing a written contract, the primary concern of the court is to ascertain the true intentions of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). In determining this, “courts should examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and…
• Meritage Homes of Texas, LLC v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company2024-01-18
  …A court first must determine that a contract is ambiguous before considering the parties’ interpretation and “admit extraneous evidence to determine the true meaning of the instrument.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). But “[i]f a latent ambiguity arises from this application, parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of ascertaining the true intention of the parties as expressed in the agreement.” Id.; see also King v. Baylor Univ., 46 F.4th 344, 362 (5th Cir. 2022) (“Parol evidence is admissible to elucidate latent contractual ambi…
• Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Ne Van Hampton2023-10-12
  …verned ‘by [the] rules of interpretation and construction which are applicable to contracts generally.’” E. Concrete Materials, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 948 F.3d 289, 300 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)). It is undisputed that the retention amounts apply to the Business Auto Coverage Form. The Self-Insured Retention Endorsement states that Mt. Hawley has no obligation to pay damages, including a money judgment, until the named insured has paid the rete…
• Frey2023-05-02
  …say, J.) (citing Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990)). Accordingly, the Court’s primary concern is to “ascertain the true intent of the parties as expressed in the instrument.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). In doing so, the Court “give[s] contract terms their plain and ordinary meaning unless the instrument indicates the parties intended a different meaning.” Dynegy Midstream Servs., Ltd. P’ship v. Apache Corp., 294 S.W.3d 164, 168 (Tex. 2009). And the Court examines the contract as a whole in an attempt to give meaning to all…
• Baylor Scott & White Holdings v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company2023-03-31
  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.
• Atain Specialty Insurance Company v. Triple PG Sand Development, LLC2023-02-28
  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.
• Doskocil Manufacturing Company v. Making Ideas LLC2023-02-01
  …determine. Kelley-Coppedge, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 980 S.W.2d 462, 464 (Tex. 1998). If the contract can be given “a definite or certain legal meaning,” then it is unambiguous and may be enforced as written. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). The Court will not find a contract ambiguous merely because the parties advance conflicting interpretations. Kelley-Coppedge, Inc., 980 S.W.2d at 465. “In construing the terms of a contract, the court’s primary purpose is always to ascertain the true intent of the parties as expressed in the written instrum…