Opinion ID: 146258
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attachment of the Endorsement

Text: Kirsh next argues that American General provided no evidence that it ever attached the Endorsement to the Policies. Kirsh contends that failure to attach the Endorsement prevented it from becoming part of the Policies, making it impossible for Alter and Schreck to have exchanged their policies “pursuant to” the Endorsement. Thus, Kirsh argues that this failure defeats any obligation on his part to return commissions under the CPTI Agreement. Kirsh’s argument on this point lacks merit. The Supreme Court of Texas has held that “[a]ll endorsements agreed to by the contracting parties should be that they actually did so. The Settlement Agreement states that, “[p]ursuant to the terms of the Endorsement, American General shall pay to” Alter and Schreck the difference between the cost of whole and term insurance for the years in question. It is clear that the parties crafted the Settlement Agreement because Alter and Schreck were, in fact, exercising the Endorsement, and not simply to show that American General would permit them to do so. 8 Case: 09-20403 Document: 00511107617 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/11/2010 No. 09-20403 attached to insurance policies, but failure to attach them does not invalidate them.” Fidelity Union Life Ins. Co. v. Methven, 346 S.W.2d 797, 800 (Tex. 1961). Therefore, American General’s alleged failure to attach the Endorsement is irrelevant. American General made the Endorsement a part of the Policies, and when Alter and Schreck exercised it through the Settlement Agreement, Kirsh’s obligation to repay the commissions American General paid on the sales of the Policies arose. 4. The CPTI Agreement’s Effect on the Agent Contracts Kirsh argues that the CPTI Agreement entirely superceded the Agent Contracts, which provide that Kirsh must repay, “on demand, any unearned commissions or service fees received by [Kirsh] for, or with respect to, premiums or payments returned to policy or contract owners by [American General] for any reason.” Having argued that no commissions repayment obligation arose from the CPTI Agreements, Kirsh contends that because the CPTI Agreements superceded the Agent Contracts, no commissions repayment obligation could have arisen from the Agent Contracts either. Because we hold that Kirsh’s repayment obligation arose under the CPTI Agreements, we do not address this issue.