Cox v. Queen Ins. Co. of America, 14134
| Decision Date | 10 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 14134,14134 |
| Citation | 370 S.W.2d 206 |
| Parties | Paul COX, Appellant, v. QUEEN INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Alsup & Alsup, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Johnson, Guthrie & Stanfield, Dallas, for appellee.
Plaintiff, Paul Cox, sued to recover damages to his pier and bath house under the terms of his insurance policy with Queen Insurance Company of America. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant upon jury findings, the force of which brought the damages within the express exclusionary provisions of the contract. We affirm the judgment.
Plaintiff owned a pier and bath house at Fulton Beach in Aransas County, which were damaged on September 11, 1961. His policy provided that he was insured against direct loss resulting from windstorm, hurricane, or hail. The insurance contract contained this exclusionary clause:
'Unless specifically named hereon, this Company shall not be liable for loss * * * caused * * * (b) by snow storm, tidal wave, high water, or overflow, whether driven by wind or not; * * *.'
The jury found, supported by the evidence, that the damages were caused by the combined action of wind and water, and not solely by the wind. The charge was submitted without objection. Under these findings, the judgment was the correct one. It is settled Texas law, under this exclusionary clause, that when there are two concurrent causes of damages, one of which is excluded by the contract, there is no coverage. Palatine Ins. Co. v. Coyle, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W. 560, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 973; Franklin Fire Insurance Co. of Philadelphia v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 470; Palatine Ins. Co. v. Petrovich, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W. 929. This is also the rule in most other jurisdictions. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Nelson, 64 Kan. 115, 67 P. 440; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Crutchfield, 160 Ky. 802, 170 S.W. 187, L.R.A.1951B, 1094; Gelber v. Paramount Fire Ins. Co. (Mo.App.), 219 S.W.2d 871; Brindley v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 35 N.J.Super. 1, 113 A.2d 53; Newark Trust Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 3 Cir., 237 F. 788, 791.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gillis v. Sun Ins. Office, Limited
...391, 207 A.2d 167; Great American Ins. Co. v. Carr (1964) Tenn.App. [11 Fire & Casualty Cases 1414]; Cox v. Queen Ins. Co. of America (Tex.Civ.App.1963), 370 S.W.2d 206; Palatine Ins. Co. v. Coyle (Tex.Civ.App.1917), 196 S.W. 560, aff'd (Tex.Com.App.) 222 S.W. 973; and Wootton Hotel Corp. v......
-
National Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Valero Energy Corp., 13-88-217-CV
...Employers National Insurance Co., 722 S.W.2d 468, 470 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1986, writ denied); Cox v. Queen Insurance Co. of America, 370 S.W.2d 206 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In Auten, for instance, where an all-risks homeowner's policy contained a simple blanket exc......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Sonfield
...109 S.W.2d 226, writ dism.; Palatine Ins. Co. v. Coyle, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W. 560, aff'd Com.App., 222 S.W. 973; Cox v. Queen Insurance Co., Tex.Civ.App., 370 S.W.2d 206, writ ref., Moreover, the policy expressly provides that it covers loss or damage to the hull of the boat resulting from......
-
Fire Ins. Exchange v. Paulson, 14261
...the damage was not caused by a combination of wind and water. Coyle v. Palatine Ins. Co., Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 973; Cox v. Queen Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 370 S.W.2d 206; Palatine Ins. Co. v. Petrovich, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W. 929; Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Muhle, 8 Cir., 208 F.2d There is of......