Ranger County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 4586

Decision Date09 March 1973
Docket NumberNo. 4586,4586
Citation492 S.W.2d 371
PartiesRANGER COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Thompson, Coe, Cousins, Irons & Porter, Arthur W. Stone, Dallas, for appellant.

Irion, Cain, Magee & Davis, Tedford E. Kimbell, Dallas, for appellee.

WALTER, Justice.

Chrysler Credit Corporation recovered a judgment against Ranger County Mutual Insurance Company on a binder contract of insurance and the Insurance Company has appealed.

James Willie Edwards purchased a car and financed it with Chrysler . A. V. May was the person who took care of the insurance for Edwards. Chrysler introduced a letter dated February 15, 1971 from May informing it that a binder had been issued showing Chrysler as the lienholder and among other things contained the following: 'Actual policy will follow in a few days.' Chrysler requested Ranger to admit the following facts:

'1. That on or about the 15th day of February, 1971, the Defendant, Ranger County Mutual Insurance Company issued a binder of insurance on a certain 1970 Dodge automobile, motor or vehicle identification number WS23UOG137045 with James Willie Edwards as the named insured and Chrysler Credit Corporation as the loss payee.

2. That on or about February 24, 1971, the Defendant, Ranger County Mutual Insurance Company paid a collision loss on said Dodge automobile in the amount of $562.60 by its draft number 180728.

3. That the aforementioned draft of the Defendant, numbered 180728, showed Chrysler Credit Corporation as one of the payees.

4. That the Defendant Ranger County Mutual Insurance Company on or about March 22, 1971, notified its producing agent, A. V. May Insurance, 121 N. Beaton, Corsicana, Texas, in writing that the Defendant was unable to approve the application of James Willie Edwards for insurance on the subject 1970 Dodge automobile, but that the Defendant was extending its binder of insurance on this particular risk until April 1, 1971.

5. That prior to August 1, 1971, no other written notice was made or transmitted in any manner by the Defendant, Ranger County Mutual Insurance Company, to either the insured, James Willie Edwards, or the loss payee, Chrysler Credit Corporation, concerning the Defendant's inability to approve the application of the insured James Willie Edwards on the subject 1970 Dodge automobile or concerning the Defendant's extention of its binder of insurance until April 1, 1971, on this particular risk, except that written notice sent on or about March 22, 1971, to its producing agent, A. V . May Insurance, referred in the next preceding request for admissions.' Ranger answered said request as follows:

'1. Admitted, except tht the date is the 14th day of February, and the vehicle identification number is, to the best of our knowledge, WS23VOG137045.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Admitted 5. Request No. 5 cannot be admitted or denied, because such notice could have been given in a number of ways by any number of people. Thus, it is obviously impossible for Defendant to truthfully admit or deny this request.'

Ranger contends the court erred in excluding from the evidence its Exhibit #2 which is a purported copy of a Texas Standard Automobile Liability Binder and its Exhibit #3 and #4 which are two copies of a letter dated March 22, 1971 from the company to Mr. May informing him that it was unable to approve Edwards' application for insurance because of his driving record. It also informed him that the company was extending the binder on the risk until April 1, 1971.

Chrysler objected to the introduction of these exhibits because no excuse for the failure to produce the original had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Ranger County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Credit Corp.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1973
    ...jury, overruled Ranger's motion, and granted Chrysler's motion for judgment in the sum of $1,700.00. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 492 S.W.2d 371. We reverse and Chrysler contended and the Court of Civil Appeals held that the following admissions, stipulations and undisputed evidence......

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