Waples-Platter Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | WAPLES-PLATTER,No. A-5791,A-5791 |
| Citation | 294 S.W.2d 375,156 Tex. 234 |
| Parties | COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMERCIAL STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Allen Clark, Greenville, Samuels, Brown, Herman & Scott, Ardell M. Young, Fort Worth, for petitioner.
Ervin Neel, G. C. Harris, Greenville, for respondents.
A building and certain personal property belonging to E. E. Willis and covered by fire insurance policies issued by respondents in his favor were damaged by fire. Respondents paid their insured $6,803.61 in satisfaction of his loss and instituted suit against petitioner to recover that amount under their right of subrogation, alleging that the fire was caused by the negligence of petitioner's employees. The jury having answered special issues on primary negligence, contributory negligence and causation in such manner as to establish petitioner's liability for the loss, the trial court entered judgment in favor of respondents, respectively, for the amounts paid by them to Mr. Willis. The Court of Civil Appeals concluded that respondents had failed to establish the amount of the damages, and remanded the cause for a new trial of the issue of damages only. 287 S.W.2d 680. Applications for writs of error were filed by petitioners and by respondent, and both applications were granted. It is our opinion that the Court of Civil Appeals properly reversed the judgment of the trial court, but that the cause should be remanded for a new trial on all issues.
No evidence of the value of the property damaged or destroyed was introduced, and no issue on damages was given or requested. At the beginning of the trial, the parties stipulated that respondents had policies of insurance in force at the time of the fire and paid various amounts to E. E. Willis, 'that the net sum paid by the plaintiffs to Mr. Willis in satisfaction of and as the result of the loss in question and controversy was $6,803.61; and that upon payment to Mr. Willis of such sum by plaintiffs they took a valid assignment from him.' Respondents contend that this constitutes a stipulation as to the amount they are entitled to recover in the event petitioner's liability is established, and that it was not necessary for them to offer evidence on that issue or submit the same to the jury.
By the terms of the stipulation, the parties simply agreed that respondents paid a certain amount to their insured in satisfaction of and as a result of the loss in controversy. The measure of damages in this case is not the amount paid by respondents to Mr. Willis, but the reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire, or if not totally destroyed, the difference between the reasonable cash market values of the property immediately before and immediately after it was damaged. We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that the stipulation does not constitute an agreement as to the amount respondents are entitled to recover in the present controversy,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J & D Towing, LLC v. Am. Alt. Ins. Corp.
...total-loss case." 446 S.W.3d 41, 45 (citing Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 359 (Tex.1995) ; Waples–Platter Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 156 Tex. 234, 294 S.W.2d 375, 376–77 (Tex.1956) ). Neither decision mentions loss-of-use damages, rendering those decisions inapposite here.62 P......
-
Cotton v. Henger
...of the entire case for a new trial of all issues. The Supreme Court held that the issues were not severable. Waples-Platter Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 294 S.W.2d 375. If the issues are not severable, the trial court may not under Rule 174(b), T.R.C.P. order separate trials of diff......
-
Wise Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Am. Hat Co.
...or repair valuation. Pasadena State Bank, 149 Tex. at 50, 228 S.W.2d at 128 ; see also Waples–Platter Co. v. Comm'l Standard Ins. Co., 156 Tex. 234, 236, 294 S.W.2d 375, 376–77 (1956) (holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant ......
-
Iley v. Hughes
...v. Lightfoot, 139 Tex. 304, 162 S.W.2d 929; Fisher v. Costal Transport Co., 149 Tex. 224, 230 S.W.2d 522; Waples-Platter Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., Tex.Sup., 294 S.W.2d 375. If Rule 174(b) were now interpreted to permit separate trial of liability and damage issues, on what basis ......