v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, L.P. F/K/A SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
════════════
No. 06-1040
════════════
Federal Insurance Company, Petitioner,
v.
Samsung Electronics America, Samsung Telecommunications America, L.P. f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Respondents
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Argued November 30, 2007
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice O’Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Medina, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Brister joined.
Samsung,[1]
a wireless telephone manufacturer, was sued in five putative class action
lawsuits (Pinney, Farina, Gilliam,
Gimpelson, and Dahlgren)[2]
alleging that radio frequency radiation emitted by Samsung phones caused
biological injury. Samsung tendered the defense of these cases to Federal, from
which Samsung had purchased several commercial general liability insurance
policies and excess liability policies over an eleven-year period. The relevant
policies covered “damages the insured becomes legally obligated to pay . . .
because of bodily injury,” defined as “bodily injury, sickness or disease
sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of these at any
time.”[3]
Reserving its right to contest coverage, Federal agreed to defend all of the
cases except Dahlgren. Federal then sought a declaration that it had no duty
to defend Samsung and moved for summary judgment on that basis. The trial court
granted Federal’s motion, holding that Federal had no
duty to defend Samsung in the five cases. The court of appeals reversed in
part, holding that Federal owed a duty to defend Pinney,
Farina, Gilliam, and Gimpelson. 202 S.W.3d 372, 384. The court of appeals agreed that
Federal had no duty to defend Dahlgren, and it affirmed that part of the
trial court’s judgment.
Federal petitioned this Court for
review, asserting that it had no duty to defend Pinney,
Farina, Gilliam, and Gimpelson,
as the complaints did not state claims for bodily injury or seek damages
because of bodily injury.[4] We granted the
petition.[5] 51
Today, in Zurich American
Insurance Co. v. Nokia, ___ S.W.3d ___, we hold that the insurers have a
duty to defend the very cases at issue here.
______________________________
Wallace B. Jefferson
Chief Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: August 29, 2008
[1] The defendants in the putative class actions are Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, L.P. f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. For ease of reference, we refer to these entities collectively as “Samsung.”
[2] These cases are described more fully in Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia, ___ S.W.3d ___, decided today.
[3] Some of the policies defined “bodily injury” as “physical injury, sickness, or disease sustained by a person and, if arising out of the foregoing, mental anguish, mental injury, shock, humiliation or death at any time.” The court of appeals held, and we agree, that any variations in wording do not affect the issues on appeal. 202 S.W.3d at 375 n.3.
[4] Samsung did not petition this Court for review of that part of the court of appeals’ judgment holding that the insurers had no duty to defend Samsung in the Dahlgren case. Tex. R. App. P. 53.1. Thus, that issue is not before us.
[5] The Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association submitted an amicus curiae brief. Tex. R. App. P. 11.
