IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-03-00289-CV
United States Fire Insurance Company,
Appellant
v.
Coy Gnade, et al.,
Appellees
From the 249th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court # C-2001-00430
DISSENTING Opinion
This case is the poster-child for a much needed change in the rules of civil procedure. The trial court signed a total of 112 pages of findings and conclusions, all submitted by plaintiffs, and refused to sign any offered by U.S. Fire. Why the parties, the trial court, or an appellate court should have to deal with this level of minutia is beyond me. It obscures the issue and makes the appeal much more complex than necessary. I do not understand why the trial court should make any findings other than those that a jury would make. This would greatly facilitate the parties’ ability to brief the relevant issue and our ability to review the trial court’s judgment. Now with that complaint stated, I note that the parties disagree over whether this was a paper trial, a trial before the bench, a summary judgment or some hybrid of these procedures.
Finally, as a rule-of-thumb, when you have to go through the kinds of interpretive contortions to find coverage for Texas and its engineers that is necessary in this case, chances are that the millions of dollars of coverage for them was not contemplated by the parties. This case is no exception. I would hold that Texas and its engineers were not named insureds and that because Dustrol was not contractually required to provide coverage for Texas and its engineers, U.S. Fire would not be obligated to provide coverage through the endorsements to the National Union policy. Having thus determined that U.S. Fire is not bound to insure Texas and its engineers through the second endorsement to the National Union policy, I would hold the trial court erred, reverse and render a judgment, and it would be unnecessary to reach the remaining issues. Accordingly, I dissent.[1]
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed March 9, 2005
[1] Normally I would spend more time tracing out the details of the policy provisions as well as the relevant contractual relationship and projects, but that will only delay the ultimate disposition of this appeal and I will yield to a more timely response. See In the Interest of S.A.P., 135 S.W.3d 165, 177-178 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004) (Gray, C.J., dissenting), rev’d, 2005 Tex. LEXIS 52, *1; 48 Tex. Sup. J. 368 (Tex. Jan. 21, 2005).
60; FRANK G. McDONALD
DO NOT PUBLISH Chief Justice (Retired)
[Participating: Chief Justice Thomas, Justice Hall, and Chief Justice (Retired) McDonald]