Tex. Sup. Ct. Opinions by Chief Justice Jefferson (Tex. 2007)

2006

State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Nickerson, No. 04-0427 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Chief Jefferson)
[insurance, automobiles, underinsured motorist coverage, UIM, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees]

Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., No. 04-0537 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson)
[automobile insurance, car accidents, UIM coverage, tort liability, prejudgment interest, attorney fees]
This case presents the following issues: (1) whether uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance
covers prejudgment interest that the underinsured motorist would owe the insured in tort liability; (2) if so,
how to apply settlement and personal injury protection (PIP) credits to the interest calculation; and (3) the
circumstances under which an insured may recover attorney’s fees from the UIM insurer under Chapter 38
of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We hold that: (1) UIM insurance covers this prejudgment interest;
(2) under the “declining principal” formula, each credit is applied according to the date on which it was
received; and (3) the insured may recover attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 only if the insurer does not
tender UIM benefits within thirty days after the trial court signs a judgment establishing the liability and
underinsured status of the other motorist. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment in part, affirm in part,
and remand this case to the trial court to calculate prejudgment interest consistent with this opinion.

State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Norris, No. 04-0514 (Tex. Dec. 22, 2006)(Chief Jefferson)
[insurance, automobiles, UIM coverage, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees]
An underinsured motorist (UIM) policy allows an insured to recover the difference between the negligent
driver’s insurance policy limit and the full amount of damages, including prejudgment interest, determined
at trial. The trial court held that the insured was not entitled to prejudgment interest under his UIM policy
because the insurer had already paid benefits that exceeded the actual damages found by the jury.
Additionally, the trial court refused to award attorney’s fees to the insured. The court of appeals reversed
on both issues. In accordance with our Brainard opinion, we hold that the insured is entitled to prejudgment
interest but not attorney’s fees. . . .
We hold that Norris is entitled to prejudgment interest calculated under the declining principal formula. We
reverse that part of the court of appeals’ judgment and remand this cause to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 60.2(f), 60.3. With respect to the attorney’s fees
issue, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for State Farm. TEX. R. APP. P. 60.2
(c).

In re The Hon. Errlinda Castillo, No. 06-0314 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson)

Slovacek LLP v. Walton, No. 04-1004 (Tex. Jun. 30, 2006)(Jefferson) Dissent by Justice Hecht

City of Grapevine v. Sipes, No. 04-0933 (Tex. Jun. 16, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson)
[tort claims act claim, TTCA, city, traffic light, DWOJ]

Kroger v. Suberu, No. 03-0913 (Tex. May 5, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson)
[malicious prosecution, shoplifiting arrest, accusation, IIED, summary judgment]

Terk v. Oppenheimer, No. 04-0681 (Tex. May 5, 2006)(Chief Justice Jefferson)
[legal malpractice, estates, who may sue, capacity]

Ayala v. Mackie, No. 04-0160 (Tex. Apr. 21, 2006)(Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson)

City of White Settlement v. Super Wash Inc., No. 04-0340 (Tex. Mar 3, 2006)(Chief Jefferson)

Also see ---> 2006 Texas Supreme Court Per Curiam Opinions | 2007 Per Curiam Opinions |
Opinions by fellow justices: Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson | Ju stice Nathan L. Hecht |
Justice Harriet O'Neill | Justice Dale Wainwright | Justice Scott A. Brister | Justice David Medina |
Justice Paul W. Green | Justice Phil Johnson | Justice Don R. Willett |