Opinion ID: 3133562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment in favor of AXIS. 8 Because the contract is unambiguous, we do not need to address the competing public policy concerns that the parties raised. Under Texas law, “[a] court should not decide a public policy question without first evaluating the contract language. Only if a contractual provision violates public policy should a court not enforce it.” Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 152 S.W.3d 172, 182 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) (citing Tex. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 996 S.W.2d 873, 878 (Tex. 1999)). MRMC does not contend that an excessinsurance contract that unambiguously precludes exhaustion by below-limit settlements violates Texas’s public policy. 12