![Texas Medical Liability Trust v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Texas Medical Liability Trust v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Texas Medical Liability Trust v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.
151 S.W.3d 706, 2004.TX.0008464
-
- USD 0.99
-
- USD 0.99
Descripción editorial
OPINION Appellants (hereafter ""Physician-insurers"") are insurance companies that issued professional liability policies to physicians. Physician-insurers claim that they are additional insureds under the ""vendor"" endorsements of general liability policies issued to Dow Corning Company by Appellees (hereafter ""Dow-insurers""). They contend that Dow-insurers owe them a duty to defend under the contracts. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Dow-insurers. Physician-insurers bring this appeal complaining that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. We will reverse the summary judgment and remand the cause.