Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallgren
| Decision Date | 18 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 17285,17285 |
| Parties | DAIRYLAND COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Glen F. WALLGREN, Indiv. and as Next Friend For Nancy Wallgren, et ux., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Brown, Crowley, Simon & Peebles, and M. Hendricks Brown, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Schattman, Mock & Guthrie, and C. Coit Mock, Fort Worth, for appellees.
Substantially, the question posed on appeal may be answered by stating an inquiry and answer, as follows:
Generally the expressions upon public policy speak with reference to the law of any particular state as embodied in its constitution, statutes, and decisions of its courts. However, expressions thereupon are oftentimes enlarged to include the administrative practices of the state's officers as part of its public policy. See generally the annotations under Words and Phrases, 'Public Policy', particularly those under the subheading 'Governed by Constitution, laws, or judicial decisions', beginning at p. 480.
In Francis v. International Travelers' Ass'n, 260 S.W. 938 (Dallas Civ.App., 1924, affirmed at 119 Tex. 1, 23 S.W.2d 282 (1930)) it was pointed out that power given by the legislature to the Department of Insurance (Insurance Commission) was to prescribe terms, conditions, and the very language of insurance policies.
In Board of Ins. Com'rs v. Carter, 228 S.W.2d 335 (), the court spoke regarding the article or articles expressive of the law now embodied in Art. 5.35 of the Insurance Code. It was held that the Board of Insurance Commissioners' promulgation of uniform policies of insurance was not an improper exercise of delegated legislative authority.
In United States Ins. Co. of Waco v. Boyer, 153 Tex. 415, 269 S.W.2d 340 (1954) it was observed: 'It is unlawful to issue a policy in words other than those expressly approved by the Insurance Commission . . ..'
Our conclusion is that terms and conditions set out in the insurance contract before us--having been prescribed and approved by the Insurance Commission--accord with and represent the public policy of the state. Stated another way: the terms and conditions of the policy do not contravene public policy.
But for the delegation of such legislative authority and the fact that in their contractual agreements the parties were not free and independent of such regulation it might be that we would deem applicable the Restatement of the Law, 'Contracts', Sec. 574, 'Legal Bargains for Exemption From Liability for Negligence'. However, even if in ordinary circumstances the contract would be contrary to public policy there probably would have been an obligation to enforce it (in behalf of plaintiffs) as written, under the court's fact findings. The trial court found that the company's policy was written in order to comply with the requirements of the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St., Art. 6701h, 'Safety Responsibility Law', relative to proof of financial responsibility of the policy-holder. (There had been a prior conviction of the policy-holder on a charge of driving while intoxicated.) Under these findings, if applicable to the policy contract, its terms and provisions would be enforceable by plaintiffs in any event. See Restatement of the Law, 'Contracts', Sec. 601...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Powell
...public policy of Texas would prevent insurance coverage for a punitive damage award is Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallgren, 477 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.9). The issue in that intermediate appellate court decision was whether the coverage of an auto......
-
Fairfield Ins. v. Stephens Martin Paving
...involving personal automobile insurance. Both concluded that punitive damages coverage is not against public policy. Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wallgren, decided in 1972, was the first case to consider whether punitive damages coverage is against Texas public policy.69 The cou......
-
Hensley v. Erie Ins. Co.
...908 (1965); Lazenby v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 214 Tenn. 639, 383 S.W.2d 1 (1964); Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company v. Wallgren, 477 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Civ.App.1972); Lipscombe v. Security Insurance Company of Hartford, 213 Va. 81, 189 S.E.2d 320 (1972); 12 J. Applem......
-
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University, C-86-959-D.
...because the instant policy contains such a provision. 15 See, e.g., Ridgway, 578 F.2d 1026 (following Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallgren, 477 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Civ.App.1972)); Ohio Casualty, 75 F.2d 58 (applying Missouri Law); Employers Ins. Co. v. Brock, 233 Ala. 551, 172 So. 671 (19......
-
Punitive damages: when, where and how they are covered.
...1026 5th Cir. 1978) (coverage for punitive damages did not violate public policy). Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wallgren, 477 S.W.2d 341 (Tex.App. 1972) (automobile policy covered punitive damages; coverage did not violate Texas public Section 38.2-227, Virginia Code Annotated: ......