Home Indem. Co. v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 09 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1126,1126 |
| Citation | 522 S.W.2d 594 |
| Parties | HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Jean TYLER et al., Appellees. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Don Weitinger, Robert H. Steelhammer, Weitinger, Steelhammer & Tucker, Houston, for appellants.
Glenn Vickery, Ben Ramey, Houston, for appellees.
This suit for personal injuries involves uninsured motorist coverage as provided by Vernon's Tex.Ins.Code Ann. art. 5.06--1 (Supp .1975).
Jean Baughman Tyler was the owner of an automobile covered by a Family Protection Insurance Policy issued by Home Indemnity Company to Jean Tyler, as named insured. Said policy of insurance contained the standard uninsured motorist provisions. On June 26, 1971, the said automobile was being driven by Sharon Baughman, the daughter of Jean Baughman Tyler. Jean Baughman Tyler was a passenger in the automobile. The automobile driven by Sharon Baughman was struck by a car driven by Helen Marie Carmichael. As a result of the collision, both Sharon Baughman and Jean Baughman Tyler (hereinafter plaintiffs) suffered personal injuries. Each plaintiff instituted suit for recovery of her damages.
The first amended original petitions filed by each plaintiff allege that Helen Marie Carmichael did not carry public liability insurance, and that, therefore, the uninsured motorist provisions of the Family Protection Insurance Policy issued by Home Indemnity Company to the plaintiff, Jean Tyler, were effective. The first amended original petition of each plaintiff named Helen Marie Carmichael and the Home Indemnity Company as defendants. The plaintiffs each sought to recover $75,000 actual damages and $75,000 exemplary damages. The two suits were ordered consolidated.
On May 21, 1974, trial was had before a jury. Although Helen Marie Carmichael answered the petition of each plaintiff, she neither appeared in person nor through her attorney at the trial of the case. After the presentation of evidence, and in response to special issues, the jury found 'that the act of the Defendant HELEN MARIE CARMICHAEL in failing to keep her car completely in the right half of the roadway, was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question' and that such conduct 'was a heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others affected by it.' The jury further found that Jean Tyler suffered actual damages totaling $6,115.04 and that she was entitled to an award of $2,000 exemplary damages. The jury further found that Sharon Baughman suffered actual damages totaling $4,166.37 and that she was entitled to an award of $2,000 exemplary damages. Upon this jury verdict, the trial court entered judgment on July 31, 1971, that Jean Tyler and Sharon Ann Baughman recover from Home Indemnity Company and Helen Marie Carmichael, and either of them jointly and severally, the sum of $14,281.41, with interest thereon from date of judgment and all costs of court.
The defendant Home Indemnity Company has perfected its appeal from the final judgment entered by the trial court.
Home Indemnity Company asserts as its first point of error 'The Trial Court erred in failing to grant Appellant's Motion for Judgment NOV.,' and as its second point of error, 'There was no evidence in the record that Carmichael was an uninsured motorist.' Home Indemnity Company asserts in its motion for judgment n.o.v., its motion for new trial, and in its brief, that the plaintiffs failed to offer any proof that the alleged tort feasor, Helen Marie Carmichael, was an uninsured motorist.
Ordinarily, in order to recover under the uninsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the tort feasor is an uninsured motorist. Pan American Fire & Casualty Company v. Loyd, 411 S.W.2d 557(Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1967, no writ); Johnson, Proving Motorist Uninsured, 35 Tex.B.J. 337 (1972). In the case before this Court, the record contains no evidence that the plaintiffs met this burden of proof. However, the judgment states that:
When this cause was tried, Mr. Weitinger told the Jury on Voir Dire that there was no issue on the question of Defendant, CARMICHAEL'S status as an uninsured motorist. In open Court, both as the trial was beginning, and as the charge was being drawn, Mr. Weitinger told the Court that whether Defendant, CARMICHAEL was uninsured was not an issue.
(Mr. Weitinger is the attorney for Home Indemnity Company.)
The defendant, Home Indemnity Company, did not attack the recital by the trial judgment that counsel representing Home Indemnity stated in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Powell
...the requirements of the Texas Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. Id. at 342-43. Next is Home Indem. Co. v. Tyler, 522 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The insurance coverage at issue in Tyler was uninsured motorist coverage contained in the sta......
-
Fairfield Ins. v. Stephens Martin Paving
...damages coverage is not against Texas public policy.72 The district court relied entirely on Dairyland, discussed above, and Home Indemnity Co. v. Tyler73 as stating Texas law.74 In Home Indemnity, the court held that uninsured motorist coverage of punitive damages is not against public pol......
-
Santos v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...Casualty Ins. Co., 17 Ohio St.3d 195, 478 N.E.2d 1000 (1985); Mullins v. Miller, 683 S.W.2d 669 (Tenn.1984); Home Indem. Co. v. Tyler, 522 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.Civ.App.1975); Lipscombe v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 213 Va. 81, 189 S.E.2d 320 (1972). See also Comments, Punitive Damages Under ......
-
Beard v. Graff
...v. Safway Steel Prods. Co., 743 S.W.2d 693, 701-705 (Tex.App.--Austin 1987, writ denied); Home Indem. Co. v. Tyler, 522 S.W.2d 594, 596-97 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Many states hold otherwise. See generally Annotation, Liability Insurance Coverage as Exte......