U.S. Cas. Co. v. Brock, 7037
Decision Date | 20 March 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 7037,7037 |
Citation | 345 S.W.2d 461 |
Parties | UNITED STATES CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jack G. BROCK, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Crenshaw, Dupree & Milam, Lubbock, for appellant.
Scarborough, Black & Tarpley, Abilene, for appellee.
This is an appeal by United States Casualty Company from a judgment against it in favor of Jack G. Brock.
An insurance policy was issued by appellant company to Texas Drive-Ur-Self System and/or William R. Francis. Wilbur D. McCarthy rented an automobile from the named car renting system and while being driven by the rentee it was in a collision with appellee Brock. An adjusting company working for appellant investigated the collision and thereafter, under instructions of appellant and before any suit was filed, advised Wilbur D. McCarthy that the policy of insurance in question did not provide coverage to him as a result of the accident. Appellee brought suit against the rentee, McCarthy, and Texas Drive-Ur-Self System for injuries sustained by himself, his wife and their minor daughter and after dismissing the latter from the suit obtained judgment for $4,500 against Wilbur D. McCarthy alone. Suit on the judgment was then filed against appellant and rendered against it by the trial court. It is from that judgment appeal is perfected.
It is undisputed that appellant entered no defense to the suit for the rentee but that all appearances, answers, and investigations were made on behalf of Texas Drive-Ur-Self System.
It is also undisputed that the policy of insurance in question was never filed or certified under the Financial Responsibility Law of Texas [Art. 6701h, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St.] as to Wilbur D. McCarthy.
Item 5, page 1 of the policy, after stating the purposes for which the automobile is to be used says, 'Driverless cars (rentee coverage excluded)'.
Section 4 of endorsement form '91A Public Automobile--Driverless Cars' provides:
'If classified as 'driverless cars,' the insurance applies only to the named insured while the automobile is so rented.'
There is no question in the record but that the endorsement forms a part of the policy
The question then presented by this appeal is whether, in the case of a first automobile accident, this insurance policy is controlled by the Texas Safety Responsibility Law with respect to such law becoming a part of the policy under 'Conditions', Sec. 8, page 3 and Sec. 23, page 4 of the policy. Otherwise the above quoted exclusion providing that 'the insurance applies only to the named insured while the automobile is so rented,' being a part of the contract, would apply and the rentee would be excluded from the coverage of the policy. Section 8 just referred to provides:
Section 23 under 'Conditions' provides
The emphasis shown in Section 8 above quoted is ours. That provision of the policy makes the insurance afforded by the policy comply with the provisions of the motor vehicle responsibility law of any state of province 'which shall be applicable' with respect to any such liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile during the policy period to the extent of the coverage and limits of liability required by such law.
Section 21. (a) of the safety responsibility act which defines a motor vehicle liability policy under the act says it 'shall mean an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance, certified as provided in Section 19 * * *.' 'The need for such a certificate of insurance, under the law as written, does not arise until * * * there has been a first accident.' McCarthy v. Insurance Company of Texas, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W.2d 836, 837 (N.W.H). The act states the penalty provided upon receipt by the Department of Public Safety 1 of a certified copy of a judgment against one covered by the act shall be suspension of the license and registration and any nonresident's operating privilege of any person against whom such judgment was rendered. 2 That penalty continues in force until the judgment is stayed, satisfied in full or to the extent otherwise provided in the act and until the person gives proof of financial responsibility. 3 (Emphasis ours.)
The San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals in applying these provisions in McCarthy v. Insurance Co. of Texas, supra, has said:
'Our understanding of these pertinent provisions, therefore, is that proof of financial responsibility is necessary for the removal of a suspension of a license and registration which occurred by reason of a prior accident. Such proof may be made by furnishing the Department of Public Safety a certificate showing coverage, and the only provision for absolute insurance occurs in cases where such a certificate has been furnished. This is so because Section 21(a) of the act defines a 'motor vehicle liability policy' as one which has been certified. Section 21(f) provides that a 'motor vehicle liability policy' so defined, becomes absolute.
(Emphasis added.)
One of the policy defenses...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bakke
...(Okl.1958); State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 233 F.2d 500 (4th Cir. 1956) (South Carolina statute); United States Casualty Co. v. Brock, 345 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Civ.App.1961) writ ref.; Holt v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 486 S.W.2d 734 (Tenn.1972); State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co......
-
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Wendler
...to provide the coverage required by the act. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Gonacha, 142 Colo. 170, 350 P.2d 189; United States Cas. Co. v. Brock (Tex.Civ.App.) 345 S.W.2d 461; Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Simpson, 228 Ark. 157, 306 S.W.2d 117; Gabler v. Cont. Cas. Co. (Mo.App.) 295 S.W.2d 194......
-
Western Cas. & Sur. Co. v. General Cas. Co. of Wis.
...214, 232. The basis for the decisions interpreting financial responsibility laws was aptly described in United States Casualty Co. v. Brock (Tex.Civ.App.), 345 S.W.2d 461, 464: 'The rationale of these cases is that the safety responsibility laws do not provide for compulsory motor vehicle l......
-
Employers Cas. Co. v. Mireles
...v. Insurance Company of Texas, 271 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1954, no writ); United States Casualty Company v. Brock, 345 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1961, writ ref'd). Cf. Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company v. Grayson, 422 S.W .2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1967, writ ref'......