in Re Essex Insurance Company, 450 S.W.3d 524

Zuniga sued SDT for personal injuries and added a declaratory-judgment claim against Essex seeking indemnity for SDT's liability.
Texas 'no direct action' rule generally bars suing insurer directly until the insured’s liability is adjudicated; no exception applied here.
Essex issued a CGL policy to SDT, investigated the accident, and concluded coverage did not apply because Zuniga was SDT’s employee (disputed by SDT).
Essex agreed to defend SDT under a reservation of rights to indemnify only if SDT’s liability would be established.
Zuniga amended to name Essex, seeking declaration of Essex’s indemnity duty; Essex moved to dismiss under Rule 91a; SDT sought/received intervention for the same relief, which SDT later abandoned.
Texas Supreme Court conditionally grants mandamus to require dismissal of Zuniga’s and SDT’s claims against Essex because the no-direct-action rule applies and mandamus relief is appropriate absent an adequate appellate remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zuniga’s claims against Essex are barred by the no-direct-action rule.	Zuniga seeks only a declaration of coverage, not money against Essex.	No direct action allowed until SDT’s liability to Zuniga is established; declaratory relief does not avoid rule.	Barred; claims must be dismissed.
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate where there is no adequate remedy by appeal.	N/A (Essex argues for mandamus).	Mandamus needed to prevent fatally flawed proceedings and prejudice.	Mandamus relief appropriate; direct dismissal required.

Angus Chem. Co. v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. 1997) (no direct action against insurer until liability determined)
Aviles v. Aguirre, 292 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam; similar no-direct-action principle)
Ollis v. State Farm Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 768 S.W.2d 722 (Tex. 1989) (cannot enforce policy directly until liability established)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 334 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2011) (insurer’s duty to indemnify/defend context; declaratory actions noted)
Matagorda County Gov’t Risk Mgmt. Pool v. County Gov’t, 52 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2000) (insurer may seek prompt resolution in declaratory action; context on indemnity/defense duties)
Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. 1997) (duty to indemnify may be justiciable before insured’s liability is determined under certain conditions)
Gandy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 925 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1996) (insurer-declaratory actions; evidentiary considerations in insurance contexts)