Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Burke
Cases that cite this one
38 later published cases cite this decision. The 21 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Grapevine Excavation v. Maryland Lloyds (Tex. 2001)
- Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc. (Tex. App. 1999)
- State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Martinez (Tex. App. 2005)
- Alida M. Anton v. Merrill Lynch and Russell Norwood, Individually (Tex. App. 2001)
- Whitehead v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Tex. App. 1997)
- Union Bankers Insurance Co. v. Shelton (Tex. 1994)
- Union National Bank of Little Rock v. Moriarty (Tex. App. 1987)
- Martin v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF RHODE ISLAND (Tex. App. 1985)
- Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Thomas (Tex. App. 1984)
- Allen v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co. (Tex. App. 2007)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia (Tex. 2006)
- Judy Tooke and Everett Tooke D/B/A Tooke and Sons and D/B/A Nature's Way Organic Landscaping v. the City of Mexia (Tex. 2006)
- Anton v. Merrill Lynch (Tex. App. 2001)
- Alida M. Anton v. Merrill Lynch and Russell Norwood, Individually (Tex. App. 2001)
- Federated Mutual Insurance v. Grapevine Excavation Inc. (5th Cir. 1999)
- Federated Mutual Insurance v. Grapevine Excavation Inc. (5th Cir. 1999)
- Novosad v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Tex. App. 1994)
- Street v. Skipper (Tex. App. 1994)
- American General Fire & Casualty Co. v. McInnis Book Store, Inc. (Tex. App. 1993)
- Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc. (5th Cir. 1992)
- Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc. (5th Cir. 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Insured, Riley P. Burke, brought suit against Prudential Insurance Company seeking to compel Prudential to change the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Although the policy expressly granted Burke this right, Prudential refused to affect the change because the named beneficiary was Burke’s former wife and her interest in the policy had not been resolved in the divorce judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court declaring that Prudential had the duty to change the beneficiary and allowing Burke a recovery of his attorney’s fees. 614 S.W.2d 847.
The Court of Civil Appeals has correctly decided the case. A collateral issue, not material to the disposition of the present case, is the extent of a spouse’s community property interest in an unmatured insurance policy, purchased with community property funds, but not mentioned in the property division of the divorce decree. We reserve this question for determination in the appropriate case. Prudential’s Application for Writ of Error is refused, no reversible error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.