The main issue in this case is whether the auto use exclusion in a comprehensive general liability policy effectively excludes coverage for a fatal accident arising out of the insured’s use of a pick-up truck to lift a make-shift man hoist.
On October 1 the Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ judgments in Mid-Continent Casualty Company v Global Enercom Management, Inc., and held that a CGL policy did not afford coverage for an accident that occurred due to the use of a Ford F-250 pick up truck to pull a rope to lift three workers to the top of a cellular telephone tower. The truck had a pulley attached to eyehooks on the front bumper, and the rope passed through the pulley and attached at the other end to a large iron “headache ball.” The supervisor began to drive the truck slowly in reverse, lifting the headache ball with three workers riding on it. At 80 feet, the rope broke. All the workers died in the fall. Their survivors sued Global Enercom, which sought contractual indemnity from its subcontractor, the workers’ employer. The subcontractor had a $1,000,000.00 CGL policy issued by Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent denied coverage under the CGL policy based on the auto exclusion. The Texas Supreme Court held that the auto exclusion applied to bar coverage under the $1M GL policy, because the accident arose out of the use of the truck. Tim Poteet and David Chamberlain handled this case for Mid-Continent Casualty Company in proceedings before the Texas Supreme Court.
♦ ♦ ♦
Texas Supreme Court to Decide Whether Defendant Must Reveal Net Worth in Suit Claiming Exemplary Damages
Since the late 1980’s, back when the Supremes were plaintiff friendly, defendants have been required to reveal their net worth in cases where the plaintiffs sought exemplary damages. The reasoning was that the jury should know what the defendant’s net worth is in order to determine what amount of exemplary damages would be appropriate to get the defendant’s attention and properly punish him, her or it. In other words, deeper pockets deserve to be emptied by bigger awards.
Now, the Supremes are being asked to take another look at this prior ruling. This mandamus petition challenges an order requiring discovery of a defendant’s net worth. The defendants contend that, because net worth is generally not relevant to tort actions, there must be some formal factual demonstration that exemplary damages (for which net worth is relevant) might be warranted. In re Mark A. Jacobs, M.D., Debra C. Gunn, M.D. and Obstretical and Gynecological Associates, P.A., No. 09-0942).
♦ ♦ ♦
Chamberlain♦McHaney is A-V (highest peer review) Rated by Martindale-Hubbell (Bar Registry of Preeminent Lawyers) and is listed in A.M. Best’s Directory of Recommended Attorneys.