Holyfield v. Members Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. B-7662,B-7662 |
| Parties | Wallace HOLYFIELD, Petitioner, v. MEMBERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
James E. Brown, Dallas, for petitioner.
Moore & Peterson, Tom J. Stollenwerck, Dallas, for respondent.
This suit originated when Holyfield sought to recover Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits under a policy he had purchased from Members Mutual Insurance Company. The policy covered the two vehicles which were scheduled and a separate premium was paid for the PIP coverage on each vehicle.
The policy basically limited PIP coverage to those injuries sustained while riding either in: 1) an owned and scheduled vehicle; 2) a replacement vehicle as defined by the policy; or 3) an unowned vehicle. Holyfield's son, who was covered by the policy, was injured while riding a motorcycle which was owned by Holyfield but not scheduled on the policy. Therefore, under the terms of the policy, he was not covered and the insurer denied coverage.
A summary judgment was rendered for the insurer, Members Mutual, on the basis that an accident which occurs on an owned but unscheduled vehicle was excluded by the policy. The court of civil appeals sitting in Dallas affirmed. 566 S.W.2d 28.
Holyfield bases his claim for benefits on the decision of Western Alliance Insurance Co. v. Dennis, 529 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1975, no writ). That decision concluded that an exclusion similar to the one in the present case, which limited PIP coverage to only those injuries suffered in owned vehicles that were scheduled on the policy, was an unauthorized limitation on the coverage required by Article 5.06-3 Texas Insurance Code Annotated. We disapprove that decision and its construction of the Texas Insurance Code and its interpretation of Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 512 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.1974). We agree with the result reached in the instant case.
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
VISION ONE LLC. v. PHILADELPHIA Indem. Ins. Co.
...Stephens v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 508 F.2d 1363, 1366 (5th Cir.1975), abrogated on other grounds by Holyfield v. Members Mut. Ins. Co., 572 S.W.2d 672 (Tex.1978); Calhoun v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 254 Cal.App.2d 407, 62 Cal.Rptr. 177, 179-81 (1967); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. ......
-
Upshaw v. Trinity Companies
...S.W.2d at 798; Holyfield v. Members Mut. Ins. Co., 566 S.W.2d 28, 29 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1978), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 572 S.W.2d 672, 673 (Tex.1978). Our holding today is also consistent with those of other states, whose courts have also recognized that the additional payment of p......
-
Old Amer. County Mut. Fire Ins. v. Sanchez
...policy.1 Texas courts have held that the owned-vehicle exclusion is valid for both PIP and UM coverage. See Holyfield v. Members Mut. Ins. Co., 572 S.W.2d 672, 673 (Tex.1978) (PIP); Conlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 828 S.W.2d 332, 336-37 (Tex.App. — Austin 1992, writ denied) The ge......
-
Anderson v. Tex. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...Anderson did not schedule on his own policy. Texas Farm Bureau cites several cases in support of its position. Holyfield v. Members Mut. Ins. Co., 572 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1978) (owner precluded from PIP coverage from injury incurred while riding owner's unscheduled motorcycle); Armendariz v. P......