Zur Kurzanzeige

dc.creatorMonsour, Douglas C.
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-30T21:01:46Z
dc.date.available2022-03-30T21:01:46Z
dc.date.issued1993
dc.identifier.citation24 TEX. TECH L. REV. 961en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/88891
dc.description.abstractAnalyzes the prominent decision American Centennial Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co. where the Texas Supreme Court held that an excess insurance carrier has a right of equitable subrogation against a primary carrier and trial counsel for mishandling a claim. The court relied on both the Stowers doctrine and public policy to distinguish precedent that would have disallowed the action due to a lack of privity.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTexas Tech Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectEquitable subrogationen_US
dc.subjectLegal malpracticeen_US
dc.subjectNegligenceen_US
dc.subjectPrivityen_US
dc.subjectExcess carriersen_US
dc.subjectAmerican Centennial Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co.en_US
dc.titleHow Long Will Privity Of Contract Remain a Defense To Legal Malpractice?: American Centennial Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co., 843 S.W.2d 480 (Tex. 1992)en_US
dc.title.alternativeHow Long Will Privity Of Contract Remain a Defense To Legal Malpractice?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Thumbnail

Das Dokument erscheint in:

Zur Kurzanzeige