Gulf Ins. Co. v. Winn, 15679
| Decision Date | 24 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 15679,15679 |
| Citation | 545 S.W.2d 526 |
| Parties | GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Orville K. WINN, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
G. Thomas Coghlan, Allan K. Dubois, Lang, Cross, Ladon, Boldrick & Green, San Antonio, for appellant.
Ralph W. Brite, Brite, Drought, Bobbitt & Halter, San Antonio, for appellee.
Appellant has perfected its appeal from a declaratory judgment entered after a nonjury trial, that it is obligated to defend Ralph L. Wiley, the named insured in an automobile liability policy, and Gary Wiley, operator of the insured vehicle, in a suit for damages brought by Orville K. Winn as the result of a two-car collision.
On August 22, 1973, Gulf issued a Texas Family Automobile Policy to Ralph L. Wiley covering a 1971 LTD Ford automobile and providing liability, medical payments, comprehensive, and collision coverage. On February 15, 1974, the policy was amended to include three additional vehicles, including a 1972 Ford pick-up truck. On June 8, 1974, this pick-up, while being driven by Gary Wiley with the permission of the named insured, was involved in a collision with Winn's vehicle. On July 11, 1975, Winn filed suit against Gary and Ralph Wiley seeking damages sustained in the collision.
On September 11, 1975, Gulf filed this action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act against Ralph and Gary Wiley, as well as Winn, seeking a declaration that it is not obligated to defend the suit brought by Winn. Gulf alleged that the 1972 pick-up was a stolen vehice and, therefore, Ralph Wiley did not have an insurable interest which would entitle him to secure a policy of insurance on it. Gulf also sought the return of $1,236.24 paid to Ralph Wiley under the collision coverage for damages to the pick-up. Neither Ralph nor Gary Wiley filed an answer, and a default judgment was entered against Ralph for return of the sum of $1,236.24. The trial court concluded that as to the liability coverage, Ralph Wiley had a sufficient insurable interest, and that Gulf is obligated to defend both Ralph Wiley and his permittee, Gary Wiley.
The evidence is largely uncontradicted. The parties stipulated to the coverage of the four vehicles, the collision, and the subsequent filing of the suit by Winn against Ralph and Gary Wiley. It was also stipulated that Gary Wiley was driving the 1972 Ford pick-up truck with the consent of his uncle, Ralph Wiley. On March 8, 1975, Ralph Wiley was indicted on eight felony counts. He was charged with unlawfully and fraudulently taking four vehicles, including the 1972 Ford pick-up in question, and of unlawfully and fraudulently receiving and concealing said four vehicles. On May 2, 1975, Ralph Wiley pleaded guilty to the felony offense of receiving and concealing stolen property over the velue of $50.00 and was sentenced to confinement for a term of ten years in the State Penitentiary and a fine of $1,000.00. The confinement was probated for a period of ten years. The statement of the investigating police officer reveals that the three vehicles added to the policy on February 15, 1974, and one other vehicle, were purchased by Ralph Wiley in a San Antonio bar for the sum of $1,000.00, without any indication of title. He also purchased two stolen inspection stickers at this bar.
Gulf seeks a reversal of the trial court's declaration that it is obligated to defend the suit brought by Winn on two propositions. It urges that the trial court erred in concluding that Ralph Wiley had sufficient insurable interest in the 1972 Ford pick-up truck to support the liability coverage. It also asserts that there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to support the trial court's finding that Wiley's lack of lawful ownership of the 1972 Ford pick-up was not material to the risk.
While it may be stated as a general rule that liability insurance, like other forms of insurance, must be supported by an insurable interest in the insured, neither the Texas Family Automobile policy nor the Texas courts require that actual ownership be in the named insured. Such a contention was considered and rejected by the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 03-96-00491-CV
...actual ownership is not required. See Smith v. Eagle Star Ins. Co., 370 S.W.2d 448 (Tex.1963); Gulf Ins. Co. v. Winn, 545 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In Smith, the plaintiff purchased fire insurance on a dwelling that she thought she and her husband ......
-
Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Home State Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.
...to afford any such status under the Home State policy. See (Dkt. No. 40 at pp. 12-13). Citing to Gulf Insurance Company v. Winn , 545 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. App.-Austin 1997, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Home State/Snap maintain that in the liability insurance context, Texas law recognizes an insurab......
-
Valdez v. Colonial Cty. Mut. Ins.
...and possession of the vehicle" and his alleged efforts to pay off the note. Id. at 640. The dissent cites Gulf Insurance Co. v. Winn, 545 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) for the proposition that there exists a stricter standard for finding an insurable intere......
-
Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Home State Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.
..."liability insurance, like other forms of insurance, must be supported by an insurable interest in the insured." Gulf Ins. Co. v. Winn, 545 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Texas courts have made clear, however, that unless the policy requires it, actual......