Taylor v. Allstate Insurance Co.
356 S.W.3d 92
Tex. App.2011Background
- Taylor and R.B.T Investments sued Allstate entities after settling a third-party auto-accident claim; Allstate tendered policy limits.
- Taylor alleged negligent defense, vicarious liability, tortious interference, breach of contract, and statutory claims under DTPA and Insurance Code.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on Allstate’s no-cause-action theory, largely rejecting non-Stowers claims.
- Taylor amended pleadings; the court severed Allstate claims and denied leave to replead; summary judgment entered.
- On appeal, the court affirmed some dismissals and reversed/remanded contract and statutory claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tort claims survive Stowers exclusivity | Taylor argues non-Stowers torts exist for insurer mishandling. | Allstate asserts Stowers is the exclusive remedy in third-party contexts. | Tort claims barred; Stowers exclusive remedy applies |
| Whether Allstate bears vicarious liability for Causey | Taylor seeks vicarious liability for attorney's conduct. | Traver bars vicarious liability of insurer for attorney's conduct. | Affirmed dismissal; no vicarious liability |
| Whether Taylor stated a cognizable tortious interference claim | Taylor asserted interference with fiduciary/contractual relations by insurer. | Insurer-move excludes such claims in third-party contexts; no interference recognized. | No cognizable tortious interference claim recognized |
| Whether Taylor can maintain breach of contract claims | Head/Traver indicate breach claims may lie alongside Stowers. | No contract-based duty shown without contract terms; no summary judgment for breach. | Reversed and remanded for contract claims |
| Whether Taylor's statutory claims survive summary judgment | Statutory rights not subsumed by Stowers; claims may proceed. | No action-specific challenge to statutory claims; broad exclusivity argument raised. | Reversed and remanded for statutory claims |
Key Cases Cited
- G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. Am. Indem. Co., 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1929) (Stowers exclusive remedy in third-party insurer claims)
- Head v. Industrial Coatings & Serv., Inc., 938 S.W.2d 27 (Tex. 1996) (insured protected by contract and Stowers rights; no broader duty)
- Mid-Continent Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 236 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. 2007) (Stowers duty limited; coinsurance/subrogation context)
- Traver v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 980 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. 1998) (attorney control; insurer not vicariously liable for attorney)
- Duddlesten, Inc. v. Highland Ins. Co., 110 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (negligence claims against insurer for handling third-party claims limited)
- Cain v. Safeco Lloyds Ins. Co., 239 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (negligence claims against insurer handling third-party claims not recognized)
- Methodist Hosp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 329 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (negligence in handling workers' comp claims outside Stowers context)
- Span Enters. v. Wood, 274 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (attorney-client context; related limitations on liability)
- Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., Inc., 261 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2008) (insurer control affects defense duties)