DocketNumber: 2004-SC-000121-DG
Citation Numbers: 192 S.W.3d 297
Judges: Scott, Wintersheimer, Graves, Roach, Cooper, Johnstone
Filed Date: 5/24/2006
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Concurring opinion by
I concur with the majority.
However, I write separately to urge abandonment of the legal fiction that insurance companies cannot be named as party defendants in automobile accident cases. Cutting through the fog of rhetoric, State Auto hired Attorney Meyers to file an answer on behalf of Wilford M. Harris. In reality, the attorney represented two entities having the single nature of being a party defendant. Had State Auto initially been made a party defendant along with Harris, this case could have proceeded fairly, expeditiously, and economically as provided by law, thus avoiding the contortions that these facts have generated. See Earle v. Cobb, 156 S.W.3d 257 (2005) (concurring opinion by Justice Graves).