Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Craddock

Decision Date20 October 1937
Docket NumberNo. 2100-6945.,2100-6945.
Citation109 S.W.2d 165
PartiesWASHINGTON NAT. INS. CO. v. CRADDOCK.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Craddock was plaintiff in the trial court and the Insurance Company was defendant. That court sustained a general demurrer to plaintiff's petition and, upon his declining further to amend, dismissed the cause. The Court of Civil Appeals decided that the petition stated a cause of action, and accordingly reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause thereto for trial on its merits. 83 S.W.(2d) 689, 690. The suit was upon a policy of accident insurance. A recovery of more than $1,400 was sought, including attorney's fees and penalties.

The petition is well summarized in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as follows: "He alleged that by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy he was entitled to payment for his injury for a term of 104 weeks at $10 per week. He made the usual allegations in his amended petition to the effect that he was the holder of a benefit certificate issued by the appellee, by the terms of which it agreed to pay him a weekly indemnity of $10 per week for accidental injury. He alleged, further, that he was injured on October 4, 1931, through accidental means in that he accidentally shot himself through the leg and knee with a pistol; that said injury incapacitated him from performing work of any nature from the date of said injury up to and including October 14, 1933, being a total of 104 weeks. He alleged in his petition that the policy excepted from that class of injuries for which it was liable `gunshot wounds.' He alleged, further, that after he had received the accidental gunshot wound the fact was made known to the agent of the company who furnished him with certain blanks to fill out and mail to the company as proof of injury. He mailed these blanks to the company, stating the nature of his accident, and the company paid him for 11 weeks at the rate of $10 per week. It then declined to pay any further weekly installments on the ground that under the terms of the policy it was not liable for an accident of the character complained of. It is undisputed that the policy held by appellant excepted from liability injury from gunshot wounds. This fact was alleged by the appellant in his amended petition, but he alleged further that the company having paid him 11 weeks' indemnity for an accidental injury produced by a gunshot wound, had waived this condition of the policy, and was therefore bound and obligated to pay him the remaining 93 weekly installments, and was estopped from denying its liability by virtue of such waiver. He alleged also that he had gone to considerable expense in securing and preparing claims and proof of injury."

We have concluded that the general demurrer was properly sustained. The question presented is not whether the act of the Insurance Company in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 cases
  • SnyderGeneral Corp. v. Great American Ins. Co., 3-90-CV-2396-BD.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • April 25, 1996
    ...where none exists. See also Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. McGuire, 744 S.W.2d 601, 602-03 (Tex.1988), citing Washington Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Craddock, 130 Tex. 251, 109 S.W.2d 165 (1937) (doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to create coverage). Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of BA......
  • PENDERGEST-HOLT, STANDFORD, LOPEZ v. Underwriters
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • January 26, 2010
    ...v. Travelers Ins. Co., 421 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 14th 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Washington Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Craddock, 130 Tex. 251, 109 S.W.2d 165, 166-67(1937)). 4 There exist two general types of injunctive relief: prohibitory injunctions and mandatory injunctions.......
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 15418
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1969
    ...nor estoppel may operate to change, re-write or enlarge the risks covered by an insurance policy. Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Craddock, 130 Tex. 251, 109 S.W.2d 165, 113 A.L.R. 854 (1937); Boyd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 421 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Civ.App., 14th Dist., 1967, err. ref., Appellees do no......
  • Republic Ins. Co. v. Silverton Elevators, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1973
    ...benefits which were expressly excepted therefrom, such as liability from injuries due to gunshot wounds in Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Craddock, 130 Tex. 251, 109 S.W.2d 165 (1937); loss for injuries while in military service in time of war, as in Ruddock v. Detroit Life Ins. Co., 209 Mich.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 16-6 Waiver
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Commercial Causes of Action Claims Title Chapter 16 Affirmative Defenses*
    • Invalid date
    ...Dep't of Transp. v. El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers Ass'n, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. 1999).[44] Washington Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Craddock, 109 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1937).[45] Washington Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Craddock, 109 S.W.2d 165, 166 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1937) (insurance company's in......

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