Sabine Towing & Transportation Co. v. Holliday Insurance Agency, Inc.
54 S.W.3d 57, 2001 WL 761436 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations for a negligent misrepresentation claim if the injury was discoverable through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Receiving an insurance certificate with a prominent disclaimer stating it confers no rights puts a party on notice to verify coverage, and a failure to do so demonstrates a lack of reasonable diligence.
Facts:
- In October 1990, Superin, Inc., a subcontractor for Sabine Towing & Transportation Co., Inc. (Sabine), purchased a liability insurance policy from Holliday Insurance Agency, Inc. (Holliday).
- On October 16, 1990, Holliday sent Sabine a certificate of insurance for Superin's policy, which indicated it included an additional insured endorsement in favor of Sabine.
- The certificate prominently displayed a disclaimer stating: 'THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.'
- Sabine had an internal policy requiring its parent company, Sequia Industries, to approve such certificates, but there is no evidence this specific certificate was ever approved before Superin began work.
- In February 1991, Danny LeLeux, a Superin employee, was injured while working on a Sabine vessel.
- On July 8, 1991, after LeLeux filed suit, Sabine's counsel wrote to Holliday seeking a determination of coverage under Superin's policy.
- In April 1992, approximately nine months after Sabine's inquiry, Holliday responded, informing Sabine that it was not covered under Superin's policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Danny LeLeux filed a personal injury suit against Sabine on June 12, 1991.
- On March 21, 1994, Sabine filed a third-party action against Holliday in a Texas trial court, alleging negligent misrepresentation.
- Sabine settled its lawsuit with LeLeux in July 1994.
- In a nonjury trial, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment for Holliday, finding Sabine's suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
- Sabine, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Holliday as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discovery rule toll the two-year statute of limitations for a negligent misrepresentation claim when the plaintiff received a certificate of insurance that contained a clear disclaimer and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to verify the actual coverage?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Cornelius
No, the discovery rule does not toll the statute of limitations in this case. The rule only applies when an injury is inherently undiscoverable, and Sabine's injury was discoverable through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The prominent disclaimer on the certificate of insurance should have prompted Sabine to verify coverage. Furthermore, Sabine's failure to follow its own internal approval procedures and its nine-month delay in following up on its coverage inquiry demonstrated a lack of diligence. Because the injury was not inherently undiscoverable, the statute of limitations began to run when Sabine received the certificate on October 16, 1990, and its suit, filed more than two years later, is time-barred.
Concurring - Justice Grant
While agreeing with the outcome that Sabine's claim is barred, the majority's categorical approach to the discovery rule is concerning. A case-by-case application focusing on whether a party 'knew or should have known' of the injury is more just. The majority's approach of determining whether a 'type of case' qualifies for the rule moves toward a statute of repose without the appropriately longer time limits, which can unfairly deny justice to parties who were not derelict in pursuing their claims upon actual discovery.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'inherently undiscoverable' prong of the discovery rule test within a commercial insurance context. It establishes that sophisticated commercial parties have a heightened duty of due diligence to verify information, especially when presented with documents containing explicit disclaimers. The ruling effectively places the burden on parties receiving certificates of insurance to actively confirm coverage rather than passively relying on the certificate, thus narrowing the applicability of the discovery rule for negligent misrepresentation claims in similar business transactions.
