Fulton v. Texas Farm Bureau Ins. Co.

Decision Date25 May 1989
Docket NumberNo. 05-88-01294-CV,05-88-01294-CV
Citation773 S.W.2d 391
PartiesLarry Wayne FULTON, Appellant, v. TEXAS FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

J. Thomas Sullivan, Ron L. Hundley, Dallas, for appellant.

Michael S. Carnahan, Robert G. Hogue, Dallas, for appellee.

Before McCLUNG, ROWE and BAKER, JJ.

McCLUNG, Justice.

Larry Wayne Fulton appeals from an adverse summary judgment resulting in denial of coverage under the uninsured motorist and personal injury protection provisions of a Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) insurance policy. In four points of error Fulton contends that the trial court erred in granting TFB's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Fulton was the passenger in a car owned by Darrell Bartek and insured by TFB. On the way home from an auto show, Bartek became involved in an argument with a female driver of another car. The driver of the other car pulled into a liquor store parking lot. Bartek followed her, parked next to her car, and continued the argument. At some point the other driver became angry and intentionally rammed her car into Bartek's car and then left the parking lot. Bartek and Fulton got out of their car to call the police and to try to get information from persons in the parking lot about the other driver. As Fulton was walking in the parking lot, the other driver drove back into the lot and intentionally struck Fulton with her car and immediately drove away. Her identity was never determined. Fulton suffered severe injuries.

Fulton did not have an automobile insurance policy of his own at the time of this accident, which might have provided him protection. Fulton sued TFB under Bartek's auto policy, alleging the car that struck him was uninsured and that he was entitled to recovery under the uninsured motorist and personal injury protection provisions of Bartek's policy.

Bartek's policy provided for the payment of personal injury protection and uninsured motorist benefits to a "covered person." Both coverages required that a "covered person" be a person "occupying" the insured car. The policy defines "occupying" the insured car as being "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off" the insured car. TFB moved for summary judgment because Fulton was not "occupying" the Bartek car at the time that he was injured. The motion was granted.

When contracting parties set forth their own definitions of the terms they employ, the courts are not at liberty to disregard such definitions and substitute other meanings. Hart v. Traders & General Inc. Co., 487 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Here, the parties to the contract agreed that the term "occupying" should be defined as "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off." By no stretch of the imagination could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sturrock
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • August 27, 2004
    ...ordinary meaning). Accordingly, we construe the term "motor vehicle accident" as a matter of law. III Citing our decision in Griffin, Texas Farm Bureau argues that accidents like the one Sturrock experienced do not fit within the plain meaning of "motor vehicle accident" because the term re......
  • United States Fidelity Guar. Co. v. Goudeau
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • December 19, 2008
    ...Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 930 S.W.2d 872, 875-76 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.); Fulton v. Tex. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 773 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied)). 8. See Gen. Accident Ins. Co. v. D'Alessandro, 671 A.2d 1233, 1235 (R.I.1996) (requiring (1) causal c......
  • Genthner v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 22, 1996
    ...dropped them and was struck by an uninsured motorist, under a literal interpretation of "occupying".); Fulton v. Texas Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 773 S.W.2d 391, 392 (Tex.App.,--Dallas, 1989) (where passenger was walking across parking lot to solicit names of witnesses to a hit-and-run accident ......
  • McDonald v. Southern County Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • November 24, 2004
    ...not covered under the policy, when he walked away from a vehicle, across a parking lot, to seek police assistance. 773 S.W.2d 391, 392 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1989, writ denied) (affirming summary judgment for insurance carrier). Fulton was a passenger in a car whose driver had argued with a drive......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT