STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY V. S.S. & G.W. 858 S.W.2d 374 (1993) CASE BRIEF

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY V. S.S. & G.W.

858 S.W.2d 374 (1993)

NATURE OF THE CASE: State Farm (P), insurer challenged the decision, which reversed and remanded the summary judgment in favor of P and held that P failed to meet its summary judgment burden. P filed a declaratory judgment action against S.S. & G.W. (Ds), an insured and a claimant, when the claimant sought damages under the insured's homeowner's policy for the transmission of genital herpes.

FACTS: S.S. contracted genital herpes after engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with G.W. at his home. S.S. requested that G.W. compensate her for her injuries. G.W. notified P, the issuer of his homeowner's insurance policy. G.W.'s homeowner's policy included an intentional injury exclusion provision. P rejected the S.S.' settlement offers for amounts within the policy limits. G.W. rejected P's offer of counsel and employed his own attorney. S.S. filed suit against G.W. alleging that he negligently transmitted genital herpes to her. S.S. and G.W. settled and entered into an agreement providing for the entry of a $1 million judgment in favor of S.S. and that S.S. would not execute the judgment against G.W. in exchange for the assignment of one-third of any claims which he might have against P for bad faith claims adjustment, deceptive trade practices, or Insurance Code violations. P instituted this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to pay the $1 million judgment. P filed a motion for summary judgment. G.W. and S.S. counterclaimed alleging that P engaged in bad faith settlement practices in failing to pay the claim. S.S. also filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of P on the specific ground that the homeowner's policy did not, as a matter of law, provide coverage for any of the claims asserted by S.S. in the underlying suit. The trial court overruled S.S.' motion for summary judgment and denied G.W. and S.S. any relief on their counterclaim. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to P holding that the summary judgment evidence did not conclusively show that G.W. intended to transmit the disease to S.S. nor did it indicate that G.W.'s conduct was so extreme that intent to injure can be inferred as a matter of law. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner