Source: http://texas-opinions.com/09-Prodigy-Communications-Corp-v-Agricultural-Excess-and-Surplus-Insurance-Tex-2009-Dissent-by-Johnson-insurance-policy-construction-notice-of-claim-condition-precedent.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:00:43+00:00

Document:
of appeals’ judgment for the reasons stated in the court of appeals’ opinion.
Justice Johnson, joined by Justice Hecht and Justice Willett, dissenting.
contracts as written and leave changes to the Legislature or insurance regulatory agency. I dissent.
policies. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex.
expression of the parties’ intent.”); Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tex.
parties have agreed, not alter it. E.g., Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 647, 649 (Tex.
they have made under the guise of construction.’”) (quoting E. Tex. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kempner, 27 S.
engrafting extra-contractual standards.’” Id. at 51 (quoting Fortis Benefits, 234 S.W.3d at 649).
notice was given within the time period allowed by another part of the policy’s notice provision.
part of the parties’ agreement.
Insurer such information and cooperation as it may reasonably require.
Timely notice was clearly and explicitly a condition precedent to any rights under the policy.
protested the notice provisions when it purchased the policy and the endorsement.
policy period or the time allowed in the policy for reporting claims after policy termination, if any.
provision. Neither of those classifications for the notice provisions is indicated by policy language.
476 S.W.2d at 280-81. In T.H.E. Insurance Co. v. P.T.P., 628 A.2d 223 (Md. 1993) and Chas. T.
unless the insurance company has been prejudiced thereby.
in the claims-made policy is of the essence in determining whether coverage exists.” Chas. T.
the Legislature intended such a result. Id.
Md. Ann. Code of 1957 art. 48A, § 482 (1991 Repl. Vol.).
statute, regulation, or agency directive that similarly applies to AESIC’s policy.
setting premium rates to cover projected losses and expenses are disrupted. See Neil A.
papers. Id. at 278. Cutaia, the insured, was sued but failed to forward suit papers to the insurer.
as well as with the approval or disapproval of the provisions of the policy?
will be excused if no harm results from their violation.
Id. at 280, 281 (emphasis added).
notice as soon as practicable.
See Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir.
PAJ, 243 S.W.3d at 641 (Willett, J., dissenting).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 48
 § 482
 v.