From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Texas
Apr 5, 1978
568 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. 1978)

Opinion

No. B-7306.

April 5, 1978.

Appeal from the District Court No. 116, Dallas County, McCarthy, J.

Jackson D. Wilson, II, John O. MacAyeal, Dallas, for petitioner.

Mullinax, Wells, Mauzy Baab, Oscar H. Mauzy, Dallas, for respondent.


ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR

George J. Ceshker instituted this suit against Bankers Commercial Life Insurance Company for alleged deceptive advertising and for damages that are authorized by section 16 of article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code. The court of civil appeals has ruled that the word "person" as used in sections 2 and 16(a) of article 21.21 of the Code means and is limited to one "engaged in the business of insurance." In affirming the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant, the court of civil appeals held that the plaintiff Ceshker did not have standing to sue and also that the summary judgment proofs showed as a matter of law that Ceshker was not adversely affected by the advertising. Tex.Civ.App., 558 S.W.2d 102.

We disapprove the holding which construed the Code to limit the term "person" to one who is engaged in the business of insurance. The judgment of the court is correct, however, for the other reason and we accordingly refuse the application for writ of error, no reversible error. Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.P.


Summaries of

Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Texas
Apr 5, 1978
568 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. 1978)
Case details for

Ceshker v. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:George J. CESHKER, Petitioner, v. BANKERS COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Apr 5, 1978

Citations

568 S.W.2d 128 (Tex. 1978)

Citing Cases

Tweedell v. Hochheim Prairie

Id. The court admitted that under Texas law, "person" as used in section 16 was not limited to "one engaged…

Lone Star Life Ins. v. Griffin

We have given careful consideration to two cases relied upon by plaintiff and find neither to be apt or…