dc.creator | Monsour, Douglas C. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-30T21:01:46Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-03-30T21:01:46Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1993 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 24 TEX. TECH L. REV. 961 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2346/88891 | |
dc.description.abstract | Analyzes 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.iso | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Texas Tech Law Review | en_US |
dc.subject | Equitable subrogation | en_US |
dc.subject | Legal malpractice | en_US |
dc.subject | Negligence | en_US |
dc.subject | Privity | en_US |
dc.subject | Excess carriers | en_US |
dc.subject | American Centennial Insurance Co. v. Canal Insurance Co. | en_US |
dc.title | How 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.alternative | How Long Will Privity Of Contract Remain a Defense To Legal Malpractice? | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |