Emmco Ins. Co. v. Burrows

• Decision Date: 05 October 1967
• Docket Number: No. 295,295
• Citation: 419 S.W.2d 665
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: EMMCO INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. J. W. BURROWS, Appellee. . Tyler

Page 665

419 S.W.2d 665

EMMCO INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. J. W. BURROWS, Appellee.

No. 295.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Tyler.

Oct. 5, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1967.

Ramey, Brelsford, Flock & Devereux, Tracy Crawford and Michael A. Hatchell, Tyler, for appellants.

Gordon Wellborn & Rex Houston, Vaughan O. Stewart, Henderson, for appellee.

DUNAGAN, Chief Justice.

Essentially, this is a suit to recover proceeds allegedly due under an automobile insurance policy as the result of a collision in Virginia involving the insured vehicle of appellee.

On January 8, 1963, appellee purchased a new 1963 GMC diesel truck . The truck was financed with Associates Discount Corporation. A policy of collision insurance on the truck was issued by Emmco Insurance Company.

Appellee used the truck in question in his business from the time it was purchased until June 15, 1965. On this latter date, the truck was involved in a collision in the state of Virginia from which this lawsuit resulted.

Appellee brought this suit against the insurer, Emmco Insurance Company, to recover damages to the vehicle in the amount of $13,500.00 as the fair market value of the truck, less $1,200.00 salvage value. Alternatively, appellee sought to recover (in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy) $10,500.00 as the reasonable cost of repairs to the truck, if it were found to be repairable.

The case was tried to a jury, which found (1) that the truck could not be repaired, and (2) that the reasonable cash market value of the truck in Virginia before the collision was $13,500.00 and $1,200 .00 after the collision. The jury further found that, for the protection of the truck, it was necessary to tow it to Dallas and that a reasonable charge for such towing was $400.00.

On the basis of this verdict, the following judgment was entered against Emmco Insurance Company: (1) $12,300.00 as damage to the truck, (2) $400.00 as reasonable expenses for the protection of the vehicle.

In addition to the cause of action alleged against Emmco Insurance Company, appellee's third amended original petition also sought a 'declaratory judgment action' decreeing that certain installment payments due the other defendants, Associates Discount Corporation or Associates Investment Company, were suspended in July of 1965 until the termination of the present suit. Such relief, as prayed for, was also awarded in the trial court's judgment.

The points of error will be discussed in an order different from that followed by the appellants.

We will first consider appellants' Point of Error No. 9 wherein it is alleged that 'The trial court erred in overruling defendants' motion for continuance.'

This case was set for trial in the court below for the week of June 6, 1966. On that date, appellants filed their first motion for continuance because of the absence of A. E. Gammon, Senior Claims Adjuster for Emmco Insurance Company. This motion was controverted by the appellee. After hearing testimony on said motion, the same was overruled by the court. It was alleged in said motion that Gammon was unable to appear in court during the week of June 6th due to illness. A doctor's certificate attached to said motion stated that Gammon was not physically able to appear in court and testify during the week of June 6, 1966. Gammon had not been subpoenaed, but it was alleged that appellants relied upon him being present and testifying in the case.

Rule 252, Texas R.C.P., not only requires that an application for continuance because of the absence of a witness shall state the name and residence of such witness, but must also state what the movant expects to prove by said witness, and in such specific terms as to advise the court of the relevancy of such testimony. The mere fact that the witness was in a position to know facts does not imply that he would give such testimony as expected of him. While appellant's Emmco Insurance Company, application for continuance relates that Mr . Gammon was its adjuster and its agent who conducted the company's business with reference to the loss out of which this lawsuit arises; and that Mr. Gammon would testify to the dealings which he had with the appellee including, on behalf of Emmco, securing estimates to show the amount of loss payable under the policy in question and to demonstrate that the company did not prevent the repair of Mr. Burrows' truck and, therefore, had no cause of action for loss of use of the truck, yet there were no allegations of facts to which the witness would actually testify as being beneficial to Emmco's defense. In the absence of such specific allegations, the trial court's refusal to delay trial on the cause was not error. Especially so, in absence of the tender by affidavit or otherwise of the witness's testimony on motion for new trial. Davis v. National Acceptance Co., 233 S.W.2d 321 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1950, writ ref ., n.r.e.); Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Davis, 268 S.W. 523 (Tex.Civ.App., Galveston, 1924, writ ref.); Poe v. hall, 241 S.W. 708 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1922, n.w.h.); Hazelrigg v. Naranjo, 184 S.W. 316 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1916, writ ref.); Wilson Finance Co. v. State of Texas, 342 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1960, n.w.h.). 'The matter of granting a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.' Hernandez v. Heldenfels, 374 S.W.2d 196, 202 (Tex.Sup.Ct., 1964). The point of error as to the action of the court in overruling the application for continuance is overruled.

By the first three points of error here presented, it is contended that the trial court erred (1) '* * * in entering judgment for $400.00 as a reasoanble charge for expenses incurred for the protection of the insured vehicle, because there were no pleadings to support the recovery of such expenditures'; (2) '* * * in submitting Special Issues Nos. 10 and 11, because there were no pleadings to support the submission of either of said issues, and, additionally, there was no evidence to support the submission of Special Issue No. 10'; (3) '* * * in overruling defendants' objections to plaintiff's testimony wherein he stated that it cost $400.00 to two the insured vehicle from Virginia to Texas, because there were no pleadings to support the admission of such evidence.'

In response to Sepcial Issues Nos. 10 and 11, the jury found that it was necessary for the protection of the truck to have it towed to Dallas, Texas, from its location in Virginia and that a reasonable charge for such towing was $400.00.

Nowhere in appellee's pleadings is it alleged that it was necessary for the protection of his truck to have it towed to Dallas, and nowhere in the pleadings did the appellee allege the expenditure of or seek recovery for any amount spent for the protection of the truck. Provisions of the insurance policy sued upon do permit recovery of 'protection expenses,' but such provisions were not specifically alleged or referred to in the pleadings, and the policy was not attached to the pleadings.

The appellee testified that the truck was towed from Virginia to Dallas at a cost of $400.00, and appellants promptly objected to this testimony on the ground that it was irrelevant and that there also were no pleadings to support its admission. These objections were overruled. Also, appellants objected to the submission of Special Issues Nos. 10 and 11 on the ground that they were not supported by any pleadings and these objections were likewise overruled.

In his third amended original petition, appellee alleged that he was the assured under Emmco Insurance Company's policy No. 8500727--20 covering his GMC truck. He then set out his claim for damages to his truck and prayed for specific and general damages.

During the trial, appellee offered the insurance policy into evidence and the court so admitted it without objection from appellants. The policy contained a provision which stated that any reasonable expenses incurred by the assured in protecting the insured vehicle shall be deemed incurred at the company's request.

It is now established that in a case brought upon a policy of insurance, in which the pleadings identify the policy and in which the policy is admitted into evidence without objection, the case is tried on the issues raised by the terms and provisions of the policy itself. American National Ins. Co. v. Fox, 184 S.W.2d 937 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1944, err. ref., w.o.m.). It is not necessary to the statement of a cause of action on an insurance policy that all provisions thereof be alleged. Robert E. Lee Life Ins. Co. v. Sanderson, 127 S.W.2d 993 (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1939, n.w.h.); First National Life Ins. Co. v. Virgil Vititow, 323 S.W.2d 313 (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1959, dism., w.o.j.). Appellants' contention of the insufficiency of the pleadings in this respect is overruled.

However, to recover such expenses under the policy, they must be incurred to 'protect' the truck. In this connection, the evidence reveals that the appellee contacted an agent of appellant and requested permission to bring the truck to Dallas and the agent said if that's what he (appellee) wanted to do, and he would pay the expenses in doing so, that would be all right. While testifying on the trial of this case, the appellee in response to a question if he thought it 'necessary for the protection of the truck' that it be brought back to Dallas answered:

'Yes, sir, because I couldn't find out what was going on out there . It had been several weeks and I was needing the truck.'

The evidence shows that when plaintiff sent for the truck, it was already in the possession of Emmco Insurance Company at a GMC dealership in Richmond, Virginia.

To recover 'protection expenses' under the policy, it must be shown that the insured vehicle is in some position from which it must be moved to 'protect' it. The mere fact that appellee (1) could not find out about his truck and (2) that he was in...