Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott

Holding that the insurer denied the insured's claim when it informed him that he was not entitled to $7,500 in past benefits, demanded repayment of the $7,500, and refused to provide continuing coverage under the terms of the insurance policy

Rhône-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel

Holding that “trial court may not grant summary judgment by default ... when the movant's summary judgment proof is legally insufficient”

Centeq Realty Inc. v. Siegler

Holding that a company with the power to elect a majority of members to a homeowners’ association was not liable for decisions made by the association with respect to security measures

Haase v. Glazner

Holding benefit of the bargain damages are not available if the claim is barred by the statute of frauds

Neely v. Wilson

Holding that statements are not actionable for defamation or business disparagement when the statement is substantially true—when "specific statements ... err in the details but ... correctly convey the gist of a story"

Limestone Prod. Distribution v. McNamara

Holding that where evidence establishes that employer “merely controlled the end sought to be accomplished” and the worker “controlled the means and details of accomplishing the work,” the worker was an independent contractor

Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.

Holding that the adjustment of claims and losses qualifies as the business of insurance, thus making an adjuster a "person" under the Insurance Code

Breshears v. State Farm Lloyds

Holding that an insured "may not use the fact that the appraisal award was different than the amount originally paid as evidence of breach of contract, especially when the contract they claim is being breached provides for resolution of disputes through appraisal."

Deepwater Horizon Cameron Int'l Corp. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc.

Rejecting insurer's argument that its insured was not yet entitled to coverage because its policy had an other insurance clause and the insured hadn't exhausted potential other insurance (where third party disputed its obligation) because the Fifth Circuit didn't read the other insurance clause to require the insured to "exhaustively litigate other potential sources of coverage before [insurer's] payment obligation is triggered," and requiring it to do so where the policy didn't require the alternative source of protection would be manifestly unfair

Rule 166a - Summary Judgment