Hale v. Allstate Insurance Company, A-7930
| Decision Date | 08 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. A-7930,A-7930 |
| Citation | 162 Tex. 65,344 S.W.2d 430 |
| Parties | Harvey E. HALE, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
John F. Harrison, Harlan Harper, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, Dallas, Royal H. Brin, Jr., Dallas, of above firm, for appellee.
This case comes to us on a certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas.
The material facts are as follows: On May 10, 1957 Allstate issued to Hale a policy of insurance for a period of one year which policy provided inter alia for medical payment coverage in the amount of $2,000. At the time Hale was the owner of a 1951 Mercury automobile which is described in the policy. This policy will be referred to hereinafter as the Mercury policy. The original Mercury policy contained these provisions:
'Sub-Part A.
'Coverage C1-Medical Payments-Automobile. To pay all reasonable expenses incurred within one year from the date of accident for necessary medical, surgical, x-ray and dental services, including prosthetic devices, and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services:
'Division One. To or for the named insured and each relative who sustains bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom hereinafter called 'bodily injury' caused by accident, while occupying or through being struck by an automobile; * * *
'Exclusions: This policy does not apply under this Sub-Part A to bodily injury: * * * (b) sustained by the named insured or a relative (1) while occupying an automobile owned by the named insured or any relative, other than an owned automobile, * * *.'
In Endorsement No. 222, attached to the policy, 'owned automobile' is defined as follows: "Owned Automobile' means * * * (c) a private passenger or utility automobile * * * ownership of any of which is acquired by the named insured during the policy period, provided * * * (2) the company insures all private passenger or utility automobiles * * * owned by the named insured on the date of such acquisition and the named insured notifies the company within 30 days following such date; * * *.'
Until September 18, 1957 Hale owned no other vehicle than the 1951 Mercury, but on said date he purchased a 1957 Ford half ton pickup truck. He immediately notified Allstate of his purchase of the truck and was issued a second policy covering a period of a year, in which policy the 1957 Ford truck is described. This second policy did not provide medical payment coverage.
At the time Hale bought the Ford truck Endorsement No. 214 was added to Allstate's Mercury policy. This endorsement contained this provision:
'Except with respect to bodily injury under Coverage C1-Medical Payments-Automobile, resulting from the named insured or any relative thereof being struck by an automobile if such coverage is afforded, it is agreed that the policy does not apply to the automobile described below or any automobile acquired as a replacement thereof.'
The 'automobile described below' is the 1957 Ford half ton pickup truck acquired by Hale on September 18, 1957.
It is undisputed that on September 18, 1957 and at all times subsequent thereto, Allstate insured all motor vehicles (two in number) owned by Hale.
On October 15, 1957 while Hale, his wife and children were riding in the 1957 Ford truck in Dallas County, Texas, they sustained injuries in a collision between the Ford truck and an automobile being driven by one James Robert Hulse. In connection with their injuries reasonable and necessary doctor's, hospital, and drug expenses were incurred in the amount of $933.50.
It is conceded that Hale took all necessary steps properly to present his claim to Allstate. Allstate then and now denies liability.
The case was tried on stipulated facts before the trial court without a jury and judgment rendered that Hale take nothing. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Hale in the sum of $933.50-the medical expenses sued for, plus interest and costs. After motion for rehearing was filed by Allstate, the Court of Civil Appeals certified to us the question: 'Did Endorsement 214 preserve or exclude medical payments coverage under the policy on the Mercury automobile for injuries sustained by the insured and his family while occupying the Ford truck when it was in a collision with the automobile of a third person?'
Appellee says that since the Mercury policy provided coverage for injuries sustained by the mamed insured and each relative 'while occupying', or 'through being struck by an automobile'; and since Endorsement No. 214 excludes the Ford pickup from the benefits of the Mercury policy 'except with respect to bodily injury * * * resulting from * * * being struck by an automobile'; and since appellant and his family were riding in the Ford pickup at the time of the collision, they were occupying the Ford and were not covered by Endorsement No. 214. Therefore, appellee reasons that recovery cannot be had for the injuries suffered. Appellee contends that 'occupying an automobile' and 'being struck by an automobile' are two separte and mutually exclusive coverages provided by the Mercury policy, and since coverage for injuries received 'while occupying' an automobile was excepted from the language of Endorsement No. 214, no recovery can be had herein for the reason no coverage for injuries received while 'occupying' the Ford pickup is provided under the Mercury policy as modified by Endorsement No. 214. Appellee also contends that no recovery can be had under the coverage for 'being struck by an automobile' because the appellant and his family were not in physical contact with the other automobile involved in the collision. The stipulation recites only that appellant and his family 'were riding in and occupying the Ford pickup when it was struck by an automobile being driven by James Robert Hulse.'
Injuries received while 'occupying' an automobile would include injuries received in what is generally known as 'one car wreck', such as a collision with any kind of stationary object, such as a bridge abutment; a parked automobile; a utility pole; a train (moving or stationary), or a car or cars thereof; loss of control of the automobile resulting in its overturning, or the occupant being thrown clear of his automobile, etc., as well as collisions between two automobiles. To construe the words 'while occupying an automobile', as appellee contends, would limit 'being struck by an automobile' to only those cases where injury is received by an insured while outside an automobile and when the striking automobile or object comes in physical contact with the person of insured. To construe 'being struck by an automobile' as covering those collisions when two automobiles run together is to give consistent construction to the two phrases. The provision in the Mercury policy for payment for injuries while 'occupying' an automobile is not one excluding this means of injury from the coverage afforded but is a positive coverage giving right to a recovery. Nowhere in the policy or in the Endorsement is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co.
...of the claimant and the automobile in question. Bates v. United Security Insurance Co., 163 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); Hale v. Allstate Insurance Co., 162 Tex. 65, 344 S.W.2d 430; Cockrum v. Travelers Indemnity Co., We do not agree, however, with the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Texas in Hale......
-
Old Amer. County Mut. Fire Ins. v. Sanchez
...States Mut. Cas. Co., 482 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e); see also Hale v. Allstate Ins. Co., 162 Tex. 65, 344 S.W.2d 430, 434 (1961) (holding in suit to obtain benefits under medical payments provision of insurance plan that plaintiff could be s......
-
Odom v. American Ins. Co.
...S.E.2d 505 (1965); Southwestern Fire and Casualty Co. v. Atkins, 346 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Civ.App.1961). See also Hale v. Allstate Insurance Co., 162 Tex. 65, 344 S.W.2d 430 (1961). The sole authority to the contrary is the early California intermediate decision, Sullivan v. Royal Exchange Assur......
-
Bates v. United Sec. Ins. Co.
...the contemplation of the policy provisions even though it did not actually come in contact with his body.' In Hale v. Allstate Insurance Company, 162 Tex. 65, 344 S.W.2d 430, the Texas Supreme Court rejected Johnston v. Maryland Casualty Company, supra, in this 'Under the facts of that case......