Court Opinion

ID: 9679876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:11:55.164795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:22.788987
License: Public Domain

ENOCH, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s judgment and parts I, II, III, IV(A), and V of the opinion. The focus of this case is on whether Pearce can assign his claim against his insurance company for breach of its duty to defend. The essence of Pearce’s claim is that had he been properly defended, he would have received a more favorable result in his lawsuit. This is analogous to a legal malpractice claim. Consequently, Zuniga v. Groce, Locke & Hebdon, 878 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1994, writ ref'd) resolves the question. The assignment of Pearce’s claim is invalid.
The Court, however, goes beyond this simple resolution. Its discussions in parts IV(B) and (C) move beyond criticism of assignments of claims in duty to defend cases and attack prejudgment assignments in insurance cases generally. Furthermore, the Court imports into its opinion language from H.S.M. Acquisitions, Inc. v. West, 917 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied), a case that does not involve an assignment of a chose in action. The Court need not enter into these additional discussions to resolve this case, and I am not confident that the conclusions implicit in these discussions are correct.
The Court’s judgment is correct. Thus, I concur.