Service Lloyd's Insurance Company d/b/a Service Casualty Insurance Company v. J.C. Wink, Inc. d/b/a Americars--Appeal from 166th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

No. 04-05-00038-CV

SERVICE LLOYD S INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a Service Casualty Insurance Company,

Appellant

v.

J.C. WINK, INC. d/b/a Americars,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CI-00708

Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding //

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Concurring and dissenting opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2005

I concur in the opinion of the court affirming the trial court s judgment regarding SLIC s duty to defend J.C. Wink in the underlying class action lawsuit. I respectfully dissent, however, from the court s opinion reversing and rendering judgment that J.C. Wink take nothing from SLIC on its article 21.55 claim.

The majority holds that article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code applies only to first-party claims based on the Fifth Court of Appeals s holding in TIG Insurance Co. v. Dallas Basketball, Ltd., 129 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. App. Dallas 2004, pet. denied). (Slip op. at 19). The Fifth Court s holding in Dallas Basketball, Ltd., however, is one of the only cases to hold that article 21.55 does not apply to claims for a defense. The majority of courts that have addressed the issue have held article 21.55 applies to claims for a defense. See ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 104 S.W.3d 247, 252 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2003, pet. granted); N. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davalos, 84 S.W.3d 314, 318-19 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2002), rev d on other grounds, 140 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2004); Luxury Living, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. Civ. A. H-02- 3166, 2003 WL 22116202 , *20 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2003); Primrose Operating Co. v. Nat l Am. Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 5:02-CV-101-C, 2003 WL 21662829, *3 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2003), aff d in part and rev d in part on other grounds, 382 F.3d 546 (5th Circ. 2004); Westport Ins. Corp. v. Atchley, Russell, Waldrop & Hlavinka, L.L.P., 267 F. Supp. 2d 601, 632 n. 19 (E.D. Tex. 2003); Ryland Group, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. Civ. A-00-CA-233 JRN, 2000 WL 33544086, at *11-12 (W.D. Tex. 2000); see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy, 925 S.W.2d 696, 714 (Tex. 1996) (suggesting that article 21.55 may apply to claims for defense). Because I agree with the reasoning of these courts, I believe J.C. Wink has a valid claim for penalties and attorney s fees under article 21.55.

Catherine Stone, Justice