Witt v. Universal Automobile Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 14 April 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 1981.,1981. |
Citation | 116 S.W.2d 1095 |
Parties | WITT v. UNIVERSAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Coryell County; Giles P. Lester, Special Judge.
Action by Minnie Lou Witt against the Universal Automobile Insurance Company and others for injuries sustained while riding in an automobile, after judgment against automobile owner for such injuries proved uncollectible. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Robert W. Brown, of Gatesville, for appellant.
T. R. Mears, of Gatesville, J. L. Goggans, of Dallas, and McClellan, Lincoln & Jones, of Waco, for appellees.
Minnie Lou Witt sustained an injury while riding as a passenger in an automobile belonging to D. H. Culberson and driven by Culberson's daughter. She recovered a judgment against Culberson for the sum of $10,000.00, as the result of such injuries, and, being unable to collect same from Culberson, she brought this suit against the Universal Automobile Insurance Company and sought recovery from it on the ground that it had issued to Culberson a policy of insurance protecting him against such liability. The insurance company defended on the ground that Culberson had breached the terms of its policy by failing to cooperate and in refusing to allow the insurance company to defend the suit brought by Miss Witt against him. At the conclusion of the evidence the court discharged the jury and rendered judgment for defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
On March 6, 1930, Universal Automobile Insurance Company issued a policy to D. H. Culberson, whereby it agreed to indemnify him to the extent of $5,000.00 against loss by reason of liability growing out of the use of his automobile. The policy contained the following provisions:
Other pertinent terms of the policy of insurance are stated more in detail in the opinions on the former appeal of this same cause. See Universal Automobile Ins. Co. v. Culberson, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 1061; Id., 126 Tex. 282, 86 S.W.2d 727, 87 S.W.2d 475.
It was alleged by the insurance company that prior to the trial of the suit by Miss Witt against Culberson, the latter breached his contract by refusing to cooperate with the insurance company in the defense of the suit. These charges were denied by Culberson. It is said that whether or not in any particular instance the insured has so far failed to give cooperation in and about the defense of the action which is contemplated by the cooperation clause in a policy, such as is here under consideration, will ordinarily be a question of fact determinable by the jury. Automobile Underwriters' Ins. Co. v. Long, Tex.Com.App., 63 S.W.2d 356; Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Permanent Ed., vol. 6, § 4059, p. 413; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Blue, 219 Ala. 37, 121 So. 25; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Snite, 106 Fla. 702, 143 So. 615; Finkle v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 224 Mo.App. 285, 26 S.W.2d 843; Marley v. Bankers' Indemnity Ins. Co., 53 R.I. 289, 166 A. 350; 72 A.L.R. 1454, annotations on Co-operation Clauses following Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 247 N.Y. 271, 160 N.E. 367; Ems v. Continental Auto Ins. Ass'n, Mo.App., 284 S.W. 824. Without reciting the evidence introduced pro and con by the parties on this issue, we think it is sufficient to state that there is a direct conflict in the testimony, and, as a consequence, the evidence merely raises an issue for the jury, and that the court, insofar as this issue is concerned, should not have withdrawn the case from the jury.
It is further contended by the insurance company that the evidence shows as a matter of law that Culberson breached his contract by refusing to allow the company to defend the suit as provided in the policy. This issue arose in this manner. Miss Witt brought her suit against both Culberson and the insurance company. During the pendency of the suit and prior to a trial thereof, a dispute arose between Culberson and the attorneys for the insurance company in which the latter charged Culberson with failure to cooperate in the defense of the suit. After much discussion of the matter, the insurance company's attorneys, on July 24, 1931, wrote Culberson complaining of his failure to cooperate and stated, in part, as follows:
On July 29, 1931, Culberson replied by letter, denying any failure on his part to cooperate and concluded as follows:
"I will employ counsel and cooperate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Petroleum Solutions, Inc.
...such right is lost forever and cannot be reclaimed without the consent of the other party." (citing Witt v. Universal Auto. Ins. Co., 116 S.W.2d 1095 (Tex. App.—Waco 1938, writ dism'd))); see also Songer v. Clement, 20 S.W.3d 188, 193-94 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.) ("A waiver, by it......
-
Carrousel Concessions, Inc. v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 84-2354
...defend insured and subsequent filing of amended complaint does not erase breach or penalties therefor); Witt v. Universal Automobile Ins. Co., 116 S.W.2d 1095, 1098 (Tex.Civ.App.1938) (where insurer wrongfully withdrew from defense of case and insured compelled to assume the defense, insure......
-
MVT Servs., LLC v. Great W. Cas. Co.
...Ins. Co., a Div. of Interstate Nat. Corp., 719 F.2d 116, 120 (5th Cir. 1983) (quoting Witt v. Universal Automobile Insurance Co., 116 S.W.2d 1095, 1098 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1938, writ dism'd). Indeed, the undisputed facts demonstrate that, upon taking over MVT's defense in Parada, Great Wes......
-
Rhodes v. Chicago Ins. Co., a Div. of Interstate Nat. Corp.
..."Having thus waived its right to defend the suit, such right was lost forever ...." Witt v. Universal Automobile Insurance Co., 116 S.W.2d 1095, 1098 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1938, writ dism'd). If, however, the duty to defend arose under the second amended original complaint, the question becom......