Court Opinion

ID: 9680976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:41:56.883548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.667393
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting on motion for rehearing.
I dissent.
We are called upon to construe the meaning of Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 26.01(a) and (b)(2) (Vernon 1990), which reads:
§ 26.01. Promise or Agreement Must be In Writing
(a) A promise or agreement described in Subsection (b) of this section is not enforceable unless the promise or agreement, or a memorandum of it, is
(1) in writing; and
(2) signed by the person to be charged with the promise or agreement or by someone lawfully authorized to sign for him.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section applies to:
[[Image here]]
(2) a promise by one person to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person.
In the context of automobile liability insurance, an insured pays premiums in return for the insurance company’s agreement to pay for certain covered losses. In the present case, the insured had a policy with Allstate Insurance Company that provided, in part:
We [Allstate] will pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any covered person becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident.... We will settle or defend, as we consider appropriate, any claim or suit asking for these damages.
Allstate’s insured was involved in an auto accident. The insured’s car collided with another car, and the occupants of the other car threatened suit against the insured for damages. In the process of presuit negotiations, Allstate orally offered a sum of money to answer for the alleged miscarriage of its insured. In my opinion, Allstate’s “promise to pay” clearly constituted “a promise by one person to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person.”
The Texas Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no legal relationship be*272tween a third-party claimant and an insurer. In Allstate Insurance Company v. Watson, 876 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1994), the Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the relationship between a third-party claimant and an insurance company, and concluded:
A third party claimant has no contract with the insurer or the insured, has not paid any premiums, has no legal relationship to the insurer or special relationship of trust with the insurer.
Id. at 149.
In the absence of any legal relationship between appellants and the insurance company in the present case, how can the insurance company be “primarily liable” to appellants, as the majority holds? I respectfully submit the majority has erred.
According to section 26.01(a) and (b), Allstate’s oral agreement to pay, even if verbally accepted by appellants, is not enforceable because the agreement was not in writing and signed.1 Therefore, I would overrule appellants’ point of error two, and affirm the summary judgment.

. I note that it is uncontroverted that Allstate withdrew its oral offer to settle eight days after the offer was made. There is no statute of limitations problem or other detrimental reliance that would preclude the applicability of the statute of frauds.