265 (Tex.1969). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). In other words, State Farm’s duty is to pay its insured; third parties can recover proceeds under the policy only insofar as their rights derive from Fullerton’s right to recover proceeds. Thus, although Texas courts have not yet decided specifically whether tort plaintiffs who seek insurance funds are in privity with an insured who pleads guilty to murder, we hold that under Texas law the Buckners are in privity with Fullerton because of the derivative nature of their recovery under the policy. This result places Texas among the bulk of other jurisdictions that have considered the question. See, e.g., Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285, 596 A.2d 414, 421, 425 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Tradewind Ins. Co. v. Stout, 85 Hawai'i 177,
holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the legally obligated to pay provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds holding that despite assurances from the insurance company that the insured could file the pol after femas deadline the insured could not collect because the insured was responsible for timely filing holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured holding that when the victim of an insured defendant derives her rights to collect insurance proceeds directly from the rights of the insured defendant they are in privity by virtue of sharfing a legal interest holding that reinsurer could be directly liable to an insured where the reinsurance agent was the ultimate consistent reimburser of losses of the insured and this status was conveyed to the insured