Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, Petitioner v. Harry Childress, Respondents

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the non‑owner endorsement provided coverage for the automobile furnished to the insured, that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not preclude the plaintiffs’ suit, that Dairyland was not entitled to attorney’s fees in the DTPA claim, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees under Art. 2226 as third‑party beneficiaries. The Court based its coverage analysis on the plain language of the endorsement and rejected the insurer’s reliance on the policy definition of “non‑owned automobile.” It also held that the declaratory‑judgment action did not bind the plaintiffs because they were not in privity. Justice Robertson dissented, arguing that the fee award under Art. 2226 was unsupported.