Court Opinion

ID: 9773567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:50:03.615773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.166890
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On rehearing, Cobb argues that summary-judgment proof of an assignment was unnecessary because, as an insurance broker, Cobb could sue in its own name as assignee. In support of this connection, Cobb cites Holmes v. Thomason, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 389, 61 S.W. 504 (1901, no writ), which holds that an insurance broker can sue in its own name when it procures the policy for the insured and pays the premium. We cannot accept this argument. Even assuming the viability of the Holmes rationale, there is no summary-judgment proof that Cobb has paid the premium in this case.
Motion for rehearing overruled.