Crown Life v. Casteel - 98-0218

  • District Court
    • 2000 - LC - Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel - 22 SW 3d 378 - Tex: Supreme Court - Google Scholar
      • William E. Casteel sold insurance policies as an independent agent of Crown Life Insurance Company. 
      • One of the policies sold by Casteel led to a lawsuit by policyholders against Casteel and Crown.
      • In that lawsuit, Casteel filed a cross-claim against Crown.
      • In this appeal from that …
    • 2001- LC - Casteel v. Crown Life Insurance
      • 2001cv00125 - Texas Western District Court - 02/26/2001 07/11/2001
    • Pacer - Yes
  • Broad-form jury charges
  • Crown Life exception
  • SHAFFER v. GUARDIAN LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICAN, (S.D.Tex ...  Ferguson, 1997 WL 528822 (Tex. ... the Court bears in mind the Casteel observation that no Texas court has ever found the existence of a fiduciary duty owed ...
  • (p54) - Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Therefore, in any given case, is it true that you do not determine from the outset which party should prevail, whether it be the consumer or some other interest?
  • Justice Owen. No, Senator. That would be the complete antithesis of judging.
  • Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Well, I am going to list some cases that undermine any assertion that you invariably rule against a particular type of party and I am going to give you a chance to comment on these, because I found some of those criticisms to be particularly wrong. In fact, all of these have been wrong, the ones who have criticized you.
    • Let's take Crown Life Insurance Company v. Casteel.
    • William Casteel, an independent agent, sold insurance policies of Crown Life Insurance Company.
    • Ruling on a novel issue, you joined the opinion that an insurance agent has standing to sue his insurance company for its deceptive or unfair acts or practices in the business of insurance.
    • Am I right on that?
  • Justice Owen. That is correct.

2003 0313 - GOV (Senate) - Setting the Record Straight: The Nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen, Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) - [PDF-273p,  VIDEO-CSPAN]

Breazeale v. Casteel, 4 S.W.3d 434

Casetext
https://casetext.com › ... › Ct. App. › 1999 › October
Oct 21, 1999 — Hurren, San Antonio, for William Casteel. Terry Scarborough ... Texas Insurance Code, was remanded to the trial court for additional proceedings.

  • 1998 - Casteel v Crown Life
    • William E. CASTEEL v. CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Argued November 19, 1998. Decided January 27, 2000 - GoogleScholar
  • 1997 - Casteel v. Crown Life Ins. Co. - GoogleScholar
      • 3 SW 3d 582 - Tex: Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist., 1997 - Google Scholar
    • This appeal arises out of a lawsuit involving multiple parties with claims and cross claims concerning the sale of life insurance policies to Randall and Sandra Ferguson.
    • Specifically, the issues involved in this appeal pertain to a dispute between appellant William E. Casteel, an insurance agent …
  • 2000 - LC - Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel - 22 SW 3d 378 - Tex: Supreme Court, 2000 - Google Scholar
    • William E. Casteel sold insurance policies as an independent agent of Crown Life Insurance Company. 
    • One of the policies sold by Casteel led to a lawsuit by policyholders against Casteel and Crown.
    • In that lawsuit, Casteel filed a cross-claim against Crown.
    • In this appeal from that …
  • 2013 - TEXAS CIVIL PROCEDURE TRIAL & APPEAL CASES AND MATERIALS - p1-125 only
    • CHAPTER 3. - PREPARATION OF THE JURY CHARGE AND RECEIPT OF THE VERDICT
    • Crown Life Insurance Company v. Casteel ............... 206  - <WishList-Book>
  • 2014 - Texas Civil Procedure: Trial and Appellate Practice, 2014-2015, By William V. Dorsaneo, III, Elaine A. Carlson, David Crump, Elizabeth G. Thornburg
  • 2014 - LC - COASTAL AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INCORPORATED, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK
    • Case: 13-20293 Document: 00512705356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2014 - 21p
    • COURT OF APPEALS - FIFTH CIRCUIT
    • Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
    • (p16-) - The Texas Supreme Court has clarified the procedure used where the settlement represents separate and common damages. In Crown Life Insurance Company v. Casteel,65 policyholders sued Crown Life Insurance Company (“Crown Life”) and its independent sales agent, Casteel.66 Casteel cross-claimed against Crown Life.67  With regard to the policyholders’ claims, the jury found that both defendants were liable; that Crown Life had committed the wrongful acts knowingly and bore responsibility for 99% of the policyholders’ damages; and that Casteel had not acted knowingly and bore responsibility for only 1%.68  With regard to Casteel’s claims against Crown Life, the jury found Crown Life responsible and awarded various damages.69 Following trial, Crown Life settled with the policyholders—as part of the settlement agreement, Crown Life was assigned the policyholders’ rights against Casteel.70 The trial court rendered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to Casteel’s claims against Crown Life; dismissed the policyholders’ claims against Crown Life because of the settlement; and rendered judgment on the verdict with respect to the policyholders’ claims against Casteel.71  Before the Texas Supreme Court, Crown Life contended that Casteel was ineligible for a settlement credit under the one satisfaction rule.72  Rather, Crown Life argued that when it settled, the jury had already found that Crown Life had acted knowingly, meaning that had the judgment been rendered, the policyholders would have been able to recover additional damages as well as joint and several damages from Crown Life.73  By contrast, the jury had found that Casteel had not acted knowingly, meaning that he was responsible for only the joint and several damages.74 Thus, Crown Life wanted the settlement credit to be applied against the total judgment that would have been rendered—the additional and joint and several damages—rather than the judgment rendered against Casteel.75 The Texas Supreme Court disagreed. “[T]he court should not apply the settlement credit to the judgment that would have been rendered against the settling defendant in determining the credit amount. Instead, the court should look to the judgment to be rendered against the nonsettling defendant and apply established principles governing settlement credits.”76
    • The court clarified that a nonsettling defendant can only receive a settlement credit based on the damages for which all tortfeasors are jointly liable, and cannot receive settlement credit for amounts representing punitive damages.77  “[T]he nonsettling defendant is entitled to offset any liability for joint and several damages by the amount of common damages paid by the settling defendant, but not for any amount of separate or punitive damages paid by the settling defendant.”78  The court concluded that Casteel was entitled to a settlement credit as to any settlement amount representing joint damages.79 But once Casteel had offered proof of the settlement amount, Crown Life bore the burden to offer evidence allocating the settlement between joint damages and additional damages.80 In other words, once the nonsettling defendant offers proof of the settlement amount, he is entitled to the settlement credit. Then, the plaintiff must bear the burden to demonstrate allocation of the settlement amount, so that part of that amount represents damages for which the settling and nonsettling defendant are jointly responsible and part of that amount represents damages for which the nonsettling defendant gets no credit.
    • Casteel’s lesson is squarely applicable here.

1996 0508 - National Post - Crown Life Settles Lawsuit - (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) · Newspapers.com