Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the Insureds paid their own defense counsel millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees prior to August 29, 2001, two years before the date on which the Insureds filed this suit. Despite the Insureds’ requests for reimbursement, Lexington reimbursed the Insureds less than $330,000 of their defense costs, and did not make any reimbursement payments until 1999. Because Lexington denied coverage and the Insureds allegedly incurred millions of dollars in damages, sufficient facts existed for the Insureds to seek a judicial remedy based on their claims for negligence and negligent-misrepresentation and their claims for violations of article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code. See Abe’s Colony Club, Inc. v. C & W Underwriters, Inc., 852 S.W.2d 86, 90-91 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1993, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Insureds’ second sub-issue 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that cases in which only issue was liability above the policy limits were not on point in case in which insured sought damages for expenses it incurred in defending thirdparty claims and that such damages constitute legal injury resulting in accrual of claim and starting of limitations (B) holding that damages based on the abstract value or importance of constitutional rights are not a permissible element of compensatory damages in such cases (C) holding an order of default was not final where it resolved only the question of liability and the case was continued for proof on the issue of damages (D) holding that insured may recover legal fees incurred in defending itself in a declaratory judgment action brought by insurer but not for those incurred in prosecuting cross claims and counterclaims against insurers (E) holding that although some breach of contract damages were calculable specific damages for which grogan sought injunctive relief were intangibles incapable of being measured by damages
Output (English): holding an order of default was not final where it resolved only the question of liability and the case was continued for proof on the issue of damages