Pageway Coaches v. Bransford
Decision Date | 20 April 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 1256.,1256. |
Citation | 71 S.W.2d 561 |
Parties | PAGEWAY COACHES, Inc., et al. v. BRANSFORD. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.
Action by J. H. Bransford against Pageway Coaches, Inc., and others, in which defendant American Fidelity & Casualty Company filed a plea of privilege. Judgment for plaintiff, and Pageway Coaches, Inc., and another appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Turner, Seaberry & Springer, of Eastland, for appellants.
Grisham Bros., and J. A. Lantz, all of Eastland, for appellee.
J. H. Bransford, for himself and wife, and as next friend of Kenneth Bransford, a minor child, brought this suit in Eastland county against the Pageway Coaches, Inc., George W. Page, and American Fidelity & Casualty Company, a foreign corporation, all nonresidents of Eastland county, to recover damages for personal injuries to himself, his said wife, and child, and damages for injuries to an automobile. The injuries were the result of a collision occurring in Eastland county, between a bus owned and operated by Pageway Coaches, Inc., and an automobile belonging to, and operated by, the said J. H. Bransford. Pageway Coaches, Inc., was sought to be held liable on a number of different grounds of negligence. The allegations upon which American Fidelity & Casualty Company was sought to be held liable were etc. (Italics ours.) The prayer was for judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for the sum of $2,999, costs, etc.
The defendant American Fidelity & Casualty Company filed a plea of privilege and, subject to same, a plea in abatement for the misjoinder of parties and causes of action, both of which pleas were overruled. Pageway Coaches, Inc., also filed a plea in abatement for like misjoinder, which was overruled. The plea of privilege and pleas in abatement were by order of the court tried at the same time with the merits of the suit.
The jury, to whom the case was submitted on special issues, found all issues in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendants Pageway Coaches, Inc., and American Fidelity & Casualty Company, except one issue as follows: "Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the collision in question was not the result of an unavoidable accident as that term is defined in this charge?" To this issue the jury answered, "No." The definition referred to was: Judgment was for plaintiff against the last-named defendants, George W. Page having been dismissed from the suit.
The first question, in due order presented for our determination, is whether or not the court erred in overruling the plea of privilege of the insurance company. The question is not free from considerable difficulty and we have concluded that for reasons which will hereinafter appear, it is not necessary that we pass upon it.
Whether the court may have erred in overruling the plea in abatement of the insurance company is a question not really presented unless we hold that the plea of privilege was properly overruled. We shall, therefore, pass to the question involving the court's action upon the plea in abatement of the Pageway Coaches, Inc. Did the court err in overruling that plea? Appellee, in a very able and comprehensive brief, implies the opinion, that the question is controlled by the answer to the further question of whether or not the character of insurance evidenced by the policy is indemnity insurance, or liability insurance. We are not convinced that the question is altogether dependent upon whether or not the character of insurance is properly to be denominated "indemnity insurance" or "liability insurance." "Indemnity insurance," as we understand it, protects the insured only against loss, and hence even if there be liability from which potential loss may result, but no loss actually occurs, the liability of the insurer does not accrue. "Liability insurance," on the other hand, protects the insured not merely against loss, but liability for loss or damages, and hence when the insured's liability accrues, or is established (whichever the policy provides), the obligation of the insurer accrues. But, if not forbidden by law, the parties to the contract of insurance may provide that the liability of the insurer shall only accrue when the liability of the insured shall be established in a particular way, as by a judgment of court. If the policy so provides, it is not for that reason any the less a contract for liability insurance. Neither does it follow that any third party would have the right to enforce liability of the insurer until the insured's liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Members Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hermann Hosp.
...v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co., 260 S.W.2d 134, 139 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1953, no writ); Pageway Coaches, Inc. v. Bransford, 71 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1934), aff'd 129 Tex. 327, 104 S.W.2d 471 (1937); Continental Oil Co. v. Bonanza Corp., 677 F.2d 455, 459 (5th......
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex. v. Thomas
...sole cause of the collision.' (Emphasis ours.) See also Ford Rent Co. v. Hughes, Tex.Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 290; Pageway Coaches, Inc., v. Bransford, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 561, 564; Bransford v. Pageway Coaches, Inc., Tex.Com.App., 129 Tex. 327, 104 S.W.2d 471, 472; City of Panhandle v. Byrd......
-
Lower Rio Grande Valley M.-W. Fair Ass'n v. Nunstedt, 10489.
...by Art. 2189, R.C.S.1925. See also Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Wooldridge, Tex.Civ.App., 90 S.W.2d 325; Pageway Coaches, Inc. v. Bransford, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 561; Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Sheffield, Tex.Civ.App., 99 S.W.2d There is further confusion in the issues in that the jury was a......
-
Green v. Evans
...they must consider the charge as submitted. The method of submission of the unavoidable issue was approved in Pageway Coaches, Inc. v. Bransford, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 561. Appellant's third point is By his point four appellant contends that the court erred in not instructing the jury to ......