Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 02 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 6224,6224 |
| Parties | DAIRYLAND COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS and Guadalupe Vargas, Appellants, v. Leonore D. MARTINEZ and Husband, Francisco Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of Ricardo Martinez, a minor, Appellees. . El Paso |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Dudley, Highsmith & Skipworth, William C. Dudley, Robert A. Skipworth, El Paso, for appellants.
Malcolm McGregor, Philip T. Cole, El Paso, for appellees.
Our former opinion is withdrawn and the following substituted therefor. This was a suit involving an uninsured motorist. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Leonore Martinez and husband, Francisco Martinez, brought suit individually and on behalf of their son, Ricardo Martinez, against Defendant-Appellant, Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas. Dairyland filed a motion urging the absence of necessary parties, and Plaintiffs-Appellees amended to make Guadalupe Vargas a party defendant, and Appellant, Dairyland, sought judgment over against him for any judgment which might be rendered against it. Based upon jury findings, judgment was entered for Appellees against Dairyland and Vargas jointly, and the judgment is silent as to Dairyland's claim against Vargas. Only Dairyland has perfected an appeal to this Court and will be referred to as Appellant. We reverse the judgment as to Dairyland and affirm the judgment as to Vargas.
The accident in question occurred on September 15, 1968, when a dump truck driven by Mr. Vargas collided with an automobile driven by Mrs. Martinez in which her son, Ricardo, was a passenger. Plaintiffs alleged coverage under the uninsured motorist provision of a policy issued to the Martinez family by Appellant. The jury awarded damages in the amounts of $5,000.00 to the minor, Ricardo Martinez, and $10,000.00 to Leonore Martinez.
Appellant contends by three points of error that the trial Court erred in admitting into evidence a policy of insurance which was not the best evidence, that there was insufficient evidence that uninsured motorist coverage existed in the contract upon which Plaintiffs based their claim, and that there was insufficient evidence that the uninsured motorist in this case fell within the terms of the policy governing this claim. It is undisputed that the policy sued upon was never introduced into evidence. We hold that the evidence offered by Plaintiffs was insufficient to sustain the judgment.
Mr. Vargas testified that there was no liability insurance on the dump truck; 'that the insurance had lapsed;' and that he ran a red light striking the Martinez vehicle. Mr. Ralph Lowenfield, an insurance agent with Belk-Schuster Agencies in El Paso, testified that the Martinez family had an account with such agency; that they had automobile insurance with Appellant on September 15, 1968; and that 'our records would indicate that it did,' pertaining to the inclusion of uninsured motorist coverage. Plaintiffs then offered a sample policy by Fireman's Fund into evidence after Mr. Lowenfield testified that 'to my knowledge' the provisions in such would be identical with the provisions of the policy provided in this case. Before introduction of the Fireman's Fund policy, Appellant's counsel objected, stating:
'Your Honor, I am going to object because that is not the policy itself, and for the reason, I object to it because they should have the policy itself.'
Such objection was overruled. Mr. Lowenfield further testified that his records showed that the Martinez policy originated on January 25, 1967, and that there was no uninsured motorist provision in it; that his earlier statement as to such coverage was based on the claim report filed with him and not from the policy; that the sample policy was a standard Texas policy; and that his records did not reflect any payment for uninsured motorist coverage by Martinez. Mr. Martinez testified in response to questioning about the existence of the Dairyland Mutual policy that:
'Q Before the accident. All right. Now, you have alleged and the agent testified that--in fact, we have been trying this lawsuit under the assumption that you had a policy of insurance with Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company, do you have that policy or did you have the policy at the time of this accident?
A I don't recall.
Q You don't recall?
A No, sir.
Q Whether you had the policy at that time?
A No, sir.
Q You don't remember. Did the company ever issue a policy of insurance?
A They did.
Q They did. Do you know what became of the policy?
A I don't, no.
Q You don't know what became of it?
A I don't--I think it is at home, maybe.
Q You think it is at home now. When this accident occurred and after it occurred, did you ever at any time look at your automobile policy?
A Yes, I did.
Q You looked at the policy?
A I did.
Q Did you go over the insurance policy with anyone as to what insurance coverage you might have, things of that type?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q You did not. Did you ever look at--you brought this lawsuit here under the section they call uninsured motorist coverage. Now, I realize most people don't look at their policies and read the policies or anything of that type, so my question is: I mean you brought the lawsuit here under that particular coverage, did you ever discuss that particular coverage that you brought the lawsuit under with anybody, any insurance agent, adjustor, attorney, friend of just anyone?
A No.'
Appellees as plaintiffs plead a specific policy and a specific provision thereof as the basis of their cause of action, alleging:
'. . . that prior to the 15th day of September, 1968, they had purchased a policy of insurance from the Defendant, DAIRYLAND COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS, said policy being numbered 41--107094 and said policy being in full force and effect upon the date of the accident heretofore described.'
'Plaintiffs would show the Court that said policy of insurance described above had a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Modine Mfg. Co. v. North East Independent School Dist.
...a reversal of the whole judgment where a part thereof is reversed.' See also, Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Martinez, 484 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso, 1972, error ref. n.r.e.). Jud's motion for rehearing is granted; the cause of action of Jud against School District w......
-
Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc., 91-2709
...contract between the parties in order to establish coverage under the policy. Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Martinez, 484 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). There appear to be two ways to prove the terms of the contract. The first and simplest is to......
-
Guynn v. Corpus Christi Bank & Trust
...Bank of Waco, 502 S.W.2d 181 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1973, no writ); Dairyland County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Texas v. Martinez, 484 S.W.2d 785 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.). In this case, the trial court exceeded his authority by disregarding an otherwise valid settlement agreemen......
-
Valley Intern. Properties, Inc. v. Brownsville Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 1352
...full and effective relief are dependent on Bass' being made a part of this cause. See Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Tex. v. Martinez,484 S.W.2d 785 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Appellees have also filed a motion in this Court asking us to dismiss the appeal because ......