Court Opinion

ID: 9671828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:43:38.722739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.277530
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the overruling of the motion for rehearing en banc.
The attorney for the defendant doctor also had the insurance company as a client, and therefore acted as the insurance company’s agent in this litigation. The insurance company, through its attorney/agent, was aware of the $750,000 in excess coverage and failed to reveal it to the plaintiff, even though the discovery rules required disclosure. When the attorney/agent received the plaintiffs offer to settle within the “known” policy limits, the insurance company did not accept the offer.1
According to the majority opinion, an insurance company can be a party to fraud by failing to disclose the full amount of insurance coverage to the plaintiff, and then when the plaintiff offers to settle within the misrepresented policy limits based on the understanding no other insurance coverage applies, the insurance company can claim the plaintiff only made a “conditional” offer that was impossible to accept. This cannot be the law.
Here, the plaintiff basically made the following offer: “Based on what you told me, I offer to settle for $99,999.00.” The majority holds this was a “conditional” offer because the plaintiff was relying on what the insurance company’s agent had told her. I would hold that a plaintiff has an absolute right to rely on sworn responses to discovery, and such reliance does not transform an otherwise unconditional offer into a “conditional” offer.2
I note that I have doubts about whether this “conditional” vs. “unconditional” analysis is controlling in any event. The Texas Su*86preme Court has indicated that the question of whether an offer of settlement is an “unconditional” offer in a Stowers case is merely evidentiary, not controlling. Ranger County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Guin, 72B S.W.2d 656, 660 (Tex.1987).

. At least the attorney/agent did not perpetuate the fraud upon the plaintiff by having his client settle for $100,000 as though there was no other coverage.

. Of course, if the insurance company was not aware of the $750,000 in excess coverage, then the plaintiff's offer, from the insurance company's perspective, was clearly an "unconditional” offer.