Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas held that Trinity Universal Insurance Company had a duty to defend Cellular One Group in putative class actions alleging bodily injury from radio-frequency radiation emitted by wireless telephone handsets. Relying on its contemporaneous decision in Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia, the court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment, with two justices dissenting.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Trinity Universal Insurance Company had a duty to defend Cellular One Group in the underlying putative class actions under the applicable commercial general liability and excess liability policies.
Holdings
- Trinity Universal Insurance Company had a duty to defend Cellular One Group in the Farina, Gilliam, and Pinney actions.
Key quotations
“Today, in Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia, 268 S.W.3d 487, we hold that the insurers have a duty to defend the very cases at issue here.” (506)
“The policies at issue covered "those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ ... to which this insurance applies."” (505)
Factual background
Cellular One Group, a wireless telephone manufacturer, was sued in three putative class actions alleging that radio-frequency radiation from wireless telephone handsets caused biological injury. Cellular One had purchased commercial general liability and excess liability policies from Trinity Universal Insurance Company and tendered the defense of those suits. Trinity agreed to defend under a reservation of rights but sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend.
Procedural history
Cellular One tendered the defense of three putative class actions to Trinity under commercial general liability and excess liability policies. Trinity agreed to defend while reserving its rights, then sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted judgment recognizing a duty to defend in Farina, Gilliam, and Pinney; the court of appeals affirmed based on its Samsung and Nokia decisions; the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed because its decision in Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia was dispositive.