Morris v. Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Tex.

Decision Date03 February 1961
Docket NumberNo. 16167,16167
Citation343 S.W.2d 269
PartiesBentley L. MORRIS, Appellant, v. MILLERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Rumph & Ivy, and Robert L. Ivy, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Crowley, Wright, Miller & Garrett, William T. McGee and Kleber Miller, Fort Worth, for appellees.

RENFRO, Justice.

The appellant Morris appealed from a summary judgment in favor of the Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas and G. W. Parker, Jr., which held that a release for personal injuries and property damages theretofore executed by appellant was valid and binding.

Appellant contends a fact issue was involved because at the time the release was executed (a) J. D. Strain was acting as an agent of Millers, (b) there was no consideration, or same was grossly inadequate, (c) the release was entered into by appellant because of mutual mistake and because of fraud on the part of Millers.

On March 20, 1959, appellant and Parker were involved in an automobile collision. Except for a brief conversation at the time of the collision, Parker and appellant had no further communications and entered into no negotiations. Parker carried liability insurance with Millers. Cole was a claims examiner and Hollabaugh was claims adjuster for Millers. Morris carried $50 deductible collision insurance on his own automobile with Southern Insurance Company. Strain was a claims adjuster for Southern.

Hollabaugh took a written statement from Morris on March 24 and left it with his superior. He had no further connection with the claim.

The day following the accident, appellant told 'my insurance man' (Strain) he did not think he was hurt. On the 24th he told Hollabaugh he was not hurt. By deposition he testified that he began hurting the day after the accident and went to a doctor for treatment about April 7.

Southern paid, except for $50, the repair bill on appellant's car. Southern called Cole concerning a settlement. Cole replied that Millers would compromise provided Morris gave a full release. Cole propared the release and mailed it to Southern. Southern secured the signature of Morris and returned the release by mail. After receiving the release Cole mailed a check to Southern payable to Morris in the sum of $50.

The release was executed by Morris and wife on April 25. It provided, in part:

'Release of All Claims

'For and in Consideration of the payment to me/us of the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00), and other good and valuable consideration, I/we, being of lawful age, have released and discharged, and by these presents do for myself/ourselves, my/our heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, release, acquit and forever discharge G. W. Parker, Jr. and any and all other persons, firms and corporations of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, damages, costs, loss of services, expenses, compensation, and all consequential damage on account of, or in any way growing out of, any and all known and unknown personal injuries and death and property damage resulting or to result from accident that occurred on or about the 20 day of March 1959, at or near Fort Worth, Texas.

'I/we hereby declare and represent that the injuries sustained may be permanent and progressive and that recovery therefrom is uncertain and indefinite, * * *.

'I/we understand that this settlement is the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim, and that the payment is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of the persons, firms and corporations hereby released by whom liability is expressly denied.'

The check payable to Katie Morris and Bentley L. Morris showed on its face it was 'In full and final settlement of any and all claims arising out of accident occurring on or about March 20, 1959 at or near Fort Worth, Texas', and on the back thereof, immediately above the signatures of Morris and wife, appeared the following: 'In consideration of the sum hereby paid, the claim or account shown on the reverse side of this instrument is fully settled, satisfied and released.'

In regard to the execution of the release, Morris testified that Strain left word with Mrs. Morris for Mr. and Mrs. Morris to meet him to sign a paper to get their $50 back. He was asked, 'He (Strain) was your insurance adjuster?' and answered, 'That's right.'

The Morrises met Strain at the Allied Finance Company. Morris did not read the release. He had ample opportunity to read it. Nobody prevented him from reading it. It was his own choice to sign without reading because he was of the opinion it was merely for the return of the $50, although he knew at the time he had sustained some injury. Strain did not tell him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Casey v. Proctor
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1963
    ... ... 558, 560; Mathews v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 47 Cal.App.2d 424, 430, 118 P.2d ... of Oregon, 229 Or. 360, 366 P.2d 527; Morris v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of Texas ... ...
  • State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Rossini
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • March 18, 1971
    ...257 N.C. 136, 125 S.E.2d 382 (1962); Corbett v. Bonney, 202 Va. 933, 121 S.E.2d 476 (1961); Morris v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas, 343 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App.1964); 76 C.J.S. Release § 25(b). Consequently, when State Farm introduced into evidence the release, admittedly ......
  • Rough v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 1968
    ...v. Martinez, 407 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1966, no writ); Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Sup.1962); Morris v. Millers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 343 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1961, no writ); Courseview, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 158 Tex. 397, 312 S.W.2d 197 (1958......
  • Wernecke v. W-Bar Ranches, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 3, 2013
    ...one party to the agreement where it is not induced by the acts of the other party will usually not constitute grounds for relief." 343 S.W.2d 269, 271 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1961, no pet.) (emphasis added). This is not inconsistent with the Texas Supreme Court's pronouncement in James T. Ta......
  • 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