Senator Eliot Shapleigh - El Paso, Texas

A commonly heard quip is that the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court is so favorably disposed toward the insurance industry that the only time an insurer loses is when one sues another.

The nine justices insist that isn't true, but the record shows the court rules for insurance companies and other corporations an overwhelming percentage of the time. A study by University of Texas law professor David Anderson found that the court sided with corporate defendants 87 percent of the time during a recent term.

One egregious example was the court's unanimous decision to grant a business owner, Entergy Gulf States Inc., immunity from a lawsuit filed by an injured worker. That was so out of line with established law and legislative intent that howls of protest were heard around the country. The court finally agreed to rehear the case.

Now the court has another insurance case to consider, and Texas voters should pay close attention to the outcome. As related in an article by American-Statesman staff writer Chuck Lindell on Friday, the case involved a family injured in a wreck caused by a driver fleeing San Marcos police in 1999.

The Tanner family's 7-year-old son, Roney Tanner, was severely injured in the crash caused by Richard Gibbons, whose truck hit the Tanners' car when he ran through a stop sign. Roney was in the hospital for a month and in physical therapy for years.

Gibbons was insured by Nationwide Insurance, but the company refused to pay for the family's injuries. Nationwide said that by fleeing police and ignoring traffic laws, Gibbons had violated his insurance contract.

Nationwide contends that Gibbons' behavior constituted "intent" to cause harm, and intentional acts void the insurance contract. The Tanners' lawyer argues that Gibbons never intended to hurt anyone but caused an accident like any other reckless driver. He noted that Gibbons hit his brakes to try to avoid the crash.

A reasonable person can see that Nationwide added to the Tanners' suffering with a ridiculous argument. If Nationwide wants to punish someone, it should punish Gibbons by suing him.

Nationwide is saying that any driver going too fast to stop at a red light or stop sign is no longer covered by their insurance. That means a whole lot of traffic accidents are caused by people who lost their insurance at that moment. As Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson noted, Nationwide's argument means "there is a lot of noncoverage out there in Texas."

This injustice was compounded by gross negligence by Hays County prosecutors. Gibbons was jailed on eight felony counts, but he made bail and skipped town, eventually landing in Akron, Ohio, his hometown.

Instead of chasing Gibbons down and placing him back in jail, prosecutors dropped the charges and left Gibbons a free man. Hays County District Attorney Sherri Tibbe, who was not district attorney when Gibbons skipped, said she will reopen the case.

The Supreme Court has embarrassed Texas with its demonstrable tilt toward insurers and other corporate defendants. As the Entergy case proves, the court has gone out of its way to protect businesses from lawsuits to a degree that even the Texas Legislature and the defense bar can't stomach.

That's why the court's decision in the Tanners' suit against Nationwide will be closely observed.