The Supreme Court of Texas delivered its opinion in Farm Bureau County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 455 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. 2015), on the issue of whether a trial court’s order was final for purposes of appeal. The court noted that the subject order did not dispose of all parties and claims because it did not expressly resolve the parties’ claims for attorney’s fees. Neither the language taxing costs nor the Mother Hubbard clause was sufficient to indicate a clear intent to dispose of the attorney’s fees claims. The court concluded that because Mother Hubbard clauses do not, on their face, implicitly dispose of claims not expressly mentioned in the order, and Farm Bureau failed to request an award of attorney’s fees in its summary judgment motion, there was nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court had even considered the issue of attorney’s fees.
Recent News
- Transparency in Coverage
- Touchstone Bernays - Touching Lives in a Big Way
- EIGHT TOUCHSTONE BERNAYS ATTORNEYS NAMED TO THE 2019 TEXAS SUPER LAWYERS LIST
- TOUCHSTONE BERNAYS ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO THE 2019 TEXAS RISING STARS LIST
- NINE TOUCHSTONE BERNAYS ATTORNEYS NAMED TO THE 2018 TEXAS SUPER LAWYERS LIST
Recent Blog Posts
- MORE ON INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
- TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY DOES NOT PREVENT A RECOVERY FOR LOSS-OF-USE DAMAGES OR LOST PROFITS
- STAY TUNED: A FIFTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PANEL........
- APPLICATION OF WATER-DAMAGE EXCLUSION IN ALL-RISK HOMEOWNER'S POLICY
- MEDICAL SERVICES EXCLUSION PRECLUDES COVERAGE