Court Opinion

ID: 9597224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:56:46.72708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:02.395771
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by
Justice GRAVES.
I concur with the majority.
However, I write separately to urge abandonment of the legal fiction that insurance companies cannot be named as party defendants in automobile accident cases. Cutting through the fog of rhetoric, State Auto hired Attorney Meyers to file an answer on behalf of Wilford M. Harris. In reality, the attorney represented two entities having the single nature of being a party defendant. Had State Auto initially been made a party defendant along with Harris, this case could have proceeded fairly, expeditiously, and economically as provided by law, thus avoiding the contortions that these facts have generated. See Earle v. Cobb, 156 S.W.3d 257 (2005) (concurring opinion by Justice Graves).