Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 23 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 3812,3812 |
| Citation | 340 S.W.2d 874 |
| Parties | PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. L. A. HAWKINS, Sr., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Richey, Sheehy & Teeling, Waco, for appellant.
Bradley & Geren, Groesbeck, for appellee.
Appellees sought recovery from appellant for fire damage to a tractor alleged to have been covered by an insurance policy issued by appellant. After a non-jury trial, judgment was rendered against appellant for the amount of the loss. Appellant's points attack the findings and conclusions filed.
The policy as issued provided insurance against loss by fire on 14 tractors specifically listed on a fleet schedule by make, model, and serial number. Appellees alleged these tractors were being used in connection with a road building contract; that one of these enumerated tractors listed on the policy and employed on the road job became disabled, and while it was in the shop for repairs, another tractor--not scheduled on the policy--was substituted on the construction job; that this unscheduled tractor sustained fire damage for which judgment was asked under the policy. Alternatively, appellees pleaded that 'if said tractor was not covered by the policy by reason of said emergency, then they are entitled to have said policy reformed to include the tractor which was substituted for the disabled tractor.'
The court found that the policy covered 14 tractors which were being used on road construction; that the burned tractor was substituted for the disabled tractor; that appellees' road contract required them to have 14 tractors operative on the job at all times; that appellees stated to appellant's agent at the time the policy contract was entered into that he 'wanted the 14 tractors on the job insured', and the agent assured them that they would be insured; that thereafter appellees delivered to the agent the list and serial numbers of the respective tractors; and that it was the intention of appellant and appellees 'to provide a contract of insurance which covered 14 tractors to be used on the road construction job.
Conclusions of law were that 'the contract and agreement provided for payment' for the loss, and that 'paragraph IV of the policy (uniform Texas standard insuring agreement IV: 'automatic insurance for newly acquired automobiles') authorized replacement within 30 days, which included the tractor involved in this suit.'
The policy clearly did not cover the tractor in question. It scheduled with particularity and designated those which were covered. Insuring agreement IV provided that if the insured 'acquires ownership of another automobile and so notifies the company within 30 days following the date of its delivery', the insurance applied to the newly acquired vehicle as of the date of acquisition 'if it replaced' an automobile described in the endorsement.
The uniform provision for automatic insurance on newly acquired automobiles is not intended to provide insurance for temporary substitute vehicles. That the provision does not apply to the facts in this record is well settled. The burned tractor did not 'replace' the scheduled tractor under established construction of the clause. Am. Bar Ass'n. Ins. Poicy Annot. (1941) pps. 75-77; 34 A.L.R.2d 936; I.L.J., March, 1957, p. 163; 5-A Am.Jur., Secs. 84, 85, pps. 82-84; 7 Appleman, Insurance, Sec. 4293. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stockberger v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co.
...Company (La.App.1965), 175 So.2d 905; Collard v. Globe Indemnity Co. (La.App.1951), 50 So.2d 838; Providence Washington Insurance Company v. Hawkins (Tex.Civ.App.1960), 340 S.W.2d 874. The rationale behind these cases is that an automobile is an automobile, as the term is ordinarily underst......
-
Bedgood v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...34, 272 N.E.2d 58 (1971); Brown v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 306 S.W.2d 836 (Ky.App.1957); Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Hawkins, 340 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.Civ.App.1960). Those cases did not, however, involve policies which, as the one before us, defined motor vehicle as one requi......
-
Lynam v. EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION
...891 (1955); Maryland Indemnity & Fire Ins. Exchange v. Steers, 221 Md. 380, 157 A.2d 803 (1960). In Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Hawkins, Tex.Civ.App., 340 S.W.2d 874, (1960) we find stated at "Neither was the tractor in question `newly acquired.' The undisputed evidence is that appell......
-
National Indem. Co. v. Giampapa
...been a newly-acquired vehicle under the terms of the policy.' (207 Okl. at p. 575, 251 P.2d at p. 176) Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Hawkins (Tex.Civ.App.1960), 340 S.W.2d 874. This is a fire insurance, and not a liability insurance, case; but the discussion of what constitutes a 'newly......