Court Opinion

ID: 9770152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:50:06.859055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:15.253569
License: Public Domain

DAVIE L. WILSON, Justice,
concurring on denial of en banc rehearing.
By the narrowest of margins, the latent danger in Kaigler v. General Elec. Mort Ins. Corp., 961 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ)1 has been narrowly averted in this case. In my opinion, Kaigler was decided incorrectly. It does not follow Mafrige2 and Inglish3 as it purports to do, and, in fact, dramatically alters longstanding law. The near miss of unjustly terminating the causes of action of over 200 plaintiffs in this case should be ample warning, but apparently it is not.
A unanimous Court voted to deny the motion for rehearing en banc.

.Kaigler, 961 S.W.2d at 277-78 (Justice Wilson dissenting).

. Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590 (Tex.1993).

. Inglish v. Union State Bank, 945 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.1997).