Howard v. Burlington Insurance Co., 347 S.W.3d 783

Howard operated an auto repair business and obtained garage liability insurance via Crist (A-Lo Insurance) who forwarded quotes to MHI and TBIC; Crist filled out the garage liability application which declined personal property coverage; Howard allegedly did not see or sign the application.
TBIC issued Garage Policy No. 211B000392 (Dec 13, 2004–Dec 13, 2005) and paid third-party claims but denied coverage for Howard's equipment and personal property after a 2005 fire.
Howard sued TBIC and MHI for multiple claims including misrepresentation and unfair insurance practices; TBIC and MHI moved for summary judgment on grounds of lack of first-party coverage and lack of agency.
The trial court granted TBIC’s and MHI’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment; after severing Crist and finalizing related claims, Howard appealed the judgments.
Howard’s fourth amended petition added Crist as a defendant; the appellate court reviews whether the TBIC policy provides first-party coverage and whether the quote/binder misled, as well as agency liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the TBIC policy provide first-party coverage for Howard’s equipment and personal property?	Howard contends policy ambiguity or coverage for first-party property.	TBIC argues policy is third-party liability with no first-party coverage.	TBIC policy provides no first-party coverage; judgments affirmed.
Were the quote and binder by MHI misleading or violating the Insurance Code?	Howard claims misrepresentation and deceptive practices.	MHI asserts quotes/binders reflect liability coverage only and adequately inform risks.	No material misrepresentation found; no genuine issue of fact.
Is Crist an agent of TBIC or MHI such that their liability extends to Crist’s misrepresentations?	Howard asserts Crist acted as TBIC/MHI agent; both liable for Crist’s conduct.	Crist was an independent agent; no agency proved for TBIC/MHI; no binding authority.	Crist was not TBIC’s or MHI’s agent with binding authority; no vicarious liability.
Was TBIC eligible to issue surplus lines insurance in Texas, making the policy valid under § 981.051?	Howard claims TBIC violated surplus lines licensing requirements.	TBIC is an eligible surplus lines insurer; entitled to place through a licensed agent.	TBIC was an eligible surplus lines insurer; § 981.051 satisfied.

Inglish v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 928 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) (quotes do not define policy terms; not binding as contract)
American Manufacturing Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003) (contract interpretation; ambiguity analyzed in context of entire policy)
Kelley-Coppedge, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 980 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. 1998) (ambiguity requires two reasonable interpretations)
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (read policy as a whole; cannot isolate provisions)
Farmer Enterprises, Inc. v. Gulf States Ins. Co., 940 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996) (agency scope and apparent authority framework for insurers)
IRA Res., Inc. v. Griego, 221 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (burden on party alleging agency; actual vs apparent authority)
Guthrie v. Rep. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 682 S.W.2d 634 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984) (apparent authority evaluated by principal’s conduct)
Tex. Cityview Care Ctr., L.P. v. Fryer, 227 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (apparent authority assessment standard)
Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. 2006) (ambiguity not created by conflicting interpretations)