Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J. v. Burch
| Citation | 426 S.W.2d 306 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11587,11587 |
| Parties | FIREMEN'S INSURANCE CO. OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, Appellant, v. Jesse L. BURCH et ux., Appellees. . Austin |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Small, Herring, Craig, Werkenthin & Shannon, C. C. Small, Jr., Austin, for appellant.
Garey, Colbert & Kidd, Joe Colbert, Austin, for appellees.
This is a declaratory judgment suit in which appellees, Jesse L. Burch and wife, Dorothy Burch, seek to determine the duties and liability, and extent of liability, of Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, appellant, under a policy of insurance issued by it to Larry J. Buttler for damages sustained by Dorothy Burch from injuries received by her as a result of a collision between an automobile in which she was a passenger and a pickup truck being driven by Sarah Buttler, the wife of Larry Buttler.
The trial court was specifically asked to determine whether Firemen's under its policy and facts now to be stated is required to defend a suit brought by Mr. and Mrs. Burch against Mr. Buttler and the former Mrs. Buttler (now Mrs. Cromier) involving the mentioned collision and whether Firemen's is required to pay any judgment, within policy limits, which might be obtained by the Burchs in such suit.
The trial court rendered judgment that Firemen's was obligated to defend Larry Buttler and to pay any judgment which might be rendered against him to the full extent of the policy coverage, but that it was not required to defend the former Mrs. Buttler or to pay any judgment which might be rendered against her in the Burch suit.
The insurance policy in suit was bought during the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Buttler with community funds. About the middle of October, 1965, Mr. and Mrs. Buttler separated and never resumed marital relationships. She testified that she never intended to return to her husband after the separation. She filed suit for divorce in November, 1965, and the divorce was granted in April, 1966. A property settlement was included in the divorce decree which provided that Mr. Buttler received as his portion of the community estate community assets of the value of $1,888.27, and assumed community indebtedness of $680.50.
Mr. and Mrs. Buttler also agreed:
'Larry J. Buttler agrees to pay all community debts that have accrued to date hereof, including all hospital, doctor and medical bills, provided, however, Sarah Louise Courtney Buttler agrees that all insurance benefits payable at the date hereof as a result of an automobile accident in December, 1965, shall be and remain the property of Larry Jack Buttler, and further agrees to execute all documents required to effect the provisions of this paragraph.'
On December 1, 1965, Mrs. Buttler while driving her father's pickup, with his consent, collided with the car in which Mrs. Burch was riding. Mrs. Burch was seriously injured and damages for such injuries are estimated to be in excess of $10,000.00.
The insurance policy in suit is in capital letters, declared to be a 'Family Automobile Policy.' It contains these provisions which are relevant to this controversy:
"Named insured' means the individual named in Item I of the declarations and also includes his spouse, if a resident of the same household.'
The liability of the insurer, subject to limitations in amounts, was 'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of' matters not in dispute.
The policy also provides, 'Bankruptcy or insolvency of the insured or of the insured's estate shall not relieve the company of any of its obligations hereunder.' The policy coverage is $10,000.00 for bodily injury to each person injured.
Appellant's first point is that the trial court erred in holding that Larry Buttler was 'legally obligated' to pay damages resulting from a tort of his wife, not participated in, aided or abetted by him.
Appellant cites Turner v. Turner, 385 S.W.2d 230, Tex.Sup.Ct., 1964, and other decisions which are to the effect that the separate property of the husband is not liable for the torts of the wife in which the husband did not participate. Turner was an alienation of affection suit brought by Genevieve Turner against Mozelle Corley and husband Pat Corley. The jury found that Mozelle Corley had alienated the affections of Harry Turner, the husband of Genevieve Turner. Regarding the liability of Pat Corley, the Court stated:
Art. 4613, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St., cited by the Court provides in part:
'The separate property of the husband shall not be subject to the debts contracted by the wife, either before or after marriage, except for necessaries furnished herself and children after her marriage with him, nor for torts of the wife.' 1
William O. Huie, Professor of Law, University of Texas Law School, in his commentary on the Community Property Law of Texas, page 1, vol. 13, V.T.C.S. (1960) states, 'The common-law rule that the husband is liable for the wife's torts has long been established law in Texas.' Cited to support this statement are McQueen v. Fulgham, 27 Tex. 463, 464 (1864) and Zeliff v. Jennings, 61 Tex. 458 (1884), which authorities unquestionably sustain Mr. Huie. The McQueen case was cited on this point with approval in Whitney Hardware Company v. McMahan, 111 Tex. 242, 231 S.W. 694.
The case of Scott v. Brazile, 292 S.W. 185, Tex.Comm. of Appeals, 1927, is directly in point. There the wife committed a forgery of which the husband had no knowledge. There was a general judgment against against both husband and wife. We quote from the opinion of the Court:
'Whenever a married woman commits a tort, she, as well as her husband, is liable for the damage resulting to another therefrom. McQueen v. Fulgham, 27 Tex. 463, 467; Zeliff v. Jennings, 61 Tex. 458, 470. * * *
The judgment rendered by the trial court for said sum of $6,531.31 in favor of the commissioner of insurance against M. D. Brazile and Annie Brazile is a general one, and does not, by its terms exclude the separate property of M. D. Brazile from the effects thereof. Under the provisions of article 4613, Revised Statutes of 1925, the separate property of the husband is not liable for the torts of the wife in which he does not participate. The judgment of the trial court, therefore, should be so reformed as to relieve the separate property of M. D. Brazile from the operation of such judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawaiian Ins. & Guaranty Co., Ltd. v. Federated Am. Ins. Co., 2508--I
...and confirmed by her suit for separate maintenance and again by her suit which culminated in a divorce. Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Burch, 426 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Civ.App.1968), also examined the intent of the parties and found no coverage. Mr. and Mrs. Buttler had purchased a policy of insurance dur......
-
Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Burch
...any judgment rendered against her' in the case of Burch v. Buttler. This declaratory judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 426 S.W.2d 306. The question of the insurance company's duty to defend presented a justiciable issue. No complaint is made of the trial court's dispositi......
-
State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Williams
...See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 4.031(a). Williams and Wallace also rely upon a 1968 case which is similar to this case. See Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Burch, 426 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 442 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.1968). In Burch, the insured's wife, Sarah Buttler, w......
-
Fort Worth Lloyds v. Garza
...a calculated risk the insurance company would take when it seeks a declaratory judgment. See Firemen's Insurance Co. Of Newark, New Jersey v. Burch, 426 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1968), rev'd on other grounds, 442 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.Sup.1969) where facts were considered in determining ......