2004). 2 . In a strange twist of fate, Ademaj’s case and Griesing’s case are exactly the same. Before Ademaj moved to sever his claims from those of the rest of the class, he and Griesing were the lead plaintiffs in the underlying class action against seven named insurers, including Liberty Mutual and MCT. 3 . In a related issue, the court also held that 28 Tex. Admin. Code § 5.205 (the commissioner’s rule authorizing insurers to recoup the ATP fee from its insureds) was valid to the extent that it allows insurers to collect the fee within the regulated rate and after written notice to the consumer. 4 . See Tex. Ins.Code Ann. § 1153.004(a) (Vernon Supp.2004). 5 . See Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Board of Ins. Comm'rs, 207 S.W.2d 972, 977-78 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings holding that fees paid by insureds are benefits accruing to the insurer in the operation of its business and must be included in insurers report to the board of insurance so as to enable the board to prescribe uniform rates holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding that the board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed to respond to a board order to show cause holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss