On September 3, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what might be one of the most important Stowers-related decisions of the decade.

This is the third installment in an eight-post series examining common “Stowers myths,” which can obscure application of an insurance company’s duty to behave in a reasonably prudent manner in responding to settlement demands.  If you are beginning here, you may want to visit the first post, here, to learn more about the basic parameters of the Stowers doctrine. MYTH #3  ▪  The insured can make a Stowers demand that triggers an insurer’s duty to ...

In this eight-post series, we are examining the most common “Stowers myths” that sometimes confuse the practical application of an insurance company’s duty to behave in a reasonably prudent manner in responding to settlement demands.  If you are new to the series, you may want to start here, at the beginning, to learn more about the basic parameters of the Stowers doctrine.  MYTH #2  ▪   The settlement demand must be in writing to trigger the ...

When an insurance company fails to act reasonably in rejecting or failing to respond to a settlement demand, it may be subject to extra-contractual liability under the long-standing Stowers doctrine.  First articulated more than 80 years ago in G.A. Stowers Furniture Company v. American Indemnity Company, 15 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1929), the common-law Stowers duty  applies when:  (1) the claim against the insured is within the scope of coverage; (2) the demand for sett ...