Case Citator › Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co.

Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
601 S.W.2d 931
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2007
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co.'s collateral source rule was displaced by a later Texas statute for medical expenses written off because of insurance. That confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 37 flagged citations have been read; later courts continue to apply Brown's other holdings, including its rule that an offset must be pleaded and proved.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

37 later cases cite Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co.; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 41.0105 displaced Brown's collateral source rule for medical expenses written off because the patient had insurance.

    Mills v. Fletcher · Texas Court of Appeals, Fourth District (San Antonio) · filed

    Our interpretation clearly does violate the collateral source rule. The theory behind the collateral source rule is that a wrongdoer should not have the benefit of insurance independently procured by the injured party, and to which the wrongdoer was not privy. Brown v. Am. Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Tex.1980). Thus, "[t]he collateral source rule bars a wrongdoer from offsetting his liability by insurance benefits independently procured by the injured party." Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Kidd, 997 S.W.2d 265, 274 (Tex. 1999) (emphasis added). Here, the insurance adjustments or amounts “written off” are a benefit that a patient receives only as a result of procuring healthcare insurance. And, pursuant to our interpretation of section 41.0105, Mills (the "wrongdoer”) will have the benefit of those adjustments made as the result of Fletcher having paid premiums and carrying health insurance. The Legislature, however, has the power to enact a statute that abrogates the collateral source rule, and we believe that the plain language of section 41.0105 shows the Legislature’s intent to do so here.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace