Legal News | March 18, 2026 | |
Texas Supreme Court Holds “Windstorm” in Homeowners’ Policy Includes a Tornado
By: Michelle Robberson
| | |
Last month the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the undefined term “windstorm,” as used in a Texas homeowners’ policy, is unambiguous and includes a tornado. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange v. Mankoff, No. 24-0132, __ S.W.3d ___ (Tex., Feb. 13, 2026) (not yet released for publication). Therefore, the policy’s windstorm and hail deductible applied to the loss.
The Mankoffs’ home suffered damage in the 2019 tornado that raced through the heart of Dallas. They made a claim under their homeowners’ policy. The insurer made only a partial payment, advising that the tornado qualified as a “windstorm” and, thus, the claim was subject to the policy’s $87,156 “Windstorm or Hail Deductible.”
Read more here...
| |
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Diversity Jurisdiction After Removal in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist
By: Chad Nelson
| | |
In Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, __ U.S. __, 146 S. Ct. 724 (2026), the United States Supreme Court resolved an important procedural question regarding diversity jurisdiction and removal practice: what happens when a federal case proceeds to judgment but the court later determines that diversity jurisdiction never actually existed?
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that, when a federal court erroneously dismisses a properly joined non-diverse defendant after removal, the resulting federal judgment must be vacated and the case returned to state court.
The decision reinforces the strict limits on federal jurisdiction and carries significant implications for removal strategy, appellate practice, and complex litigation.
Read more here...
| | |
The Road Ends at Proximate Cause: The Texas Supreme Court Reverses a $100 Million Trucking Verdict in Werner Enterprises v. Blake
By: William Allred and Omar Azam
| |
In Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake, 719 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. 2025), the Supreme Court of Texas reversed a nearly $100 million verdict arising from a tragic winter highway collision and clarified an important limitation on negligence liability: proximate cause still matters. For defendants and insurers alike, the decision represents a significant development in how courts evaluate causation when an accident is set in motion by forces outside a defendant’s control.
The Accident
The case arose from a devastating crash during icy conditions on a Texas interstate. On December 30, 2014, Trey Salinas was driving a vehicle with four passengers (Jennifer Blake and her three children). Plaintiffs were traveling eastbound on I-20 near Odessa, Texas. Temperatures were below freezing, with sleet and hazardous driving conditions.
Read more here...
| |
Plain as A, B, CiCi: HSB Ransomware Endorsement’s Plain Language Fails to Limit Restaurant’s Cyber Extortion Claim to $250,000 Sub-Limit
By: Julie Shehane and Daniel Alvarado
| |
The Insurance Coverage team of Brent Cooper, Julie Shehane, and Daniel Alvarado at Cooper & Scully secured a favorable ruling on its client’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in federal court, providing cyber insurance policyholders with greater clarity of their rights.
On February 23, 2026, the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of CiCi Enterprises, LP (“CiCi”) in a dispute with CiCi’s cyber insurance carrier, HSB Specialty Insurance Company (“HSB”). The Northern District held that, under the plain language of a Ransomware Event Sub-Limit Endorsement (“Ransomware Endorsement”), the endorsement did not apply to cap CiCi’s recovery to $250,000.
The dispute stemmed from a malware attack in May 2022 in which a threat actor encrypted CiCi’s computer systems and threatened to publish sensitive data if CiCi did not pay a ransom. CiCi subsequently reported the malware attack to its cyber insurance carrier, HSB. CiCi then retained incident response services before paying a $400,000 ransom. In total, CiCi incurred roughly $1.2 million in costs.
Read more here...
| | |
Predictability and Efficiency or a Procedural Slog: Will the New Summary Judgment Rules Under TRCP 166a Live Up to their Lofty Intentions?
By: Jillian Ginger and Nick Baker
| |
The Texas Supreme Court recently amended Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a to implement a comprehensive rewrite of the framework governing summary-judgment practice.[1] These amendments, which apply to all motions for summary judgment filed on or after March 1, 2026, represent a significant modernization of summary‑judgment practice in Texas.
By codifying deadlines for responses, replies, hearings, submissions, and rulings, the rule addresses long‑standing concerns about delays and uncertainty in summary‑judgment proceedings. This article highlights the most notable aspects of these changes and their potential impact on litigants and courts.
Read more here...
| | |
Join us for our 33rd Annual Insurance Symposium on May 8, 2026!
The objective of this online course is to educate the attendant on the practical and ethical aspects of evaluating, defending and litigating insurance coverage and bad faith claims. The presentation will provide an update on the current status of the law, emerging trends in the law, legal strategies, and potential considerations and solutions. The presentations will include a broad spectrum of topics addressing a variety of insurance related topics.
Register here!
| | | | |
