Court Opinion

ID: 9639440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:17:55.311291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:18.510062
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Based on the analysis by Chief Justice Quinn of the meaning of “prevailing party” in Dean Foods Co. v. Anderson, 178 S.W.3d 449, 456 (Tex.App.-Amarillo no pet. h.), and Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Vaughn, No. 07-04-0349-CV, 2005 WL 2396833, at *3, 2005 Tex.App. LEXIS 7988, *7-9 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Sept. 29, 2005, no pet. h.),1 I concur in the judgment.

. The same issue was first decided by the El Paso Court of Appeals in Pac. Emplrs. Ins. Co. v. Torres, 174 S.W.3d 344 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 2005, no pet. h.), and the same issue in a different fact pattern was reviewed by the Eastland Court of Appeals in Cigna Ins. Co. v. Middleton, 63 S.W.3d 901 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2001, pet. denied).