Cox v. Queen Insurance Company of America

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cox v. Queen Insurance Company of America

370 S.W.2d 206, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 2225

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJuly 10, 1963

Docket14134

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 370 S.W.2d 206 (Cox v. Queen Insurance Company of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. Queen Insurance Company of America, 370 S.W.2d 206, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 2225 (Tex. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

POPE, Justice.

Plaintiff, Paul Cox, sued to recover damages to his pier and bath house under the terms of his insurance policy with Queen Insurance Company of America. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant upon jury findings, the force of which brought the damages within the express exclusionary provisions of the contract. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff owned a pier and bath house at Fulton Beach in Aransas County, which were damaged on September 11, 1961. His policy provided that he was insured against direct loss resulting from windstorm, hurricane, or hail. The insurance contract contained this exclusionary clause:

“Unless specifically named hereon, this Company shall not be liable for loss * * * caused * * * (b) by snow storm, tidal wave, high water, or overflow, whether driven by wind or not; * *

The jury found, supported by the evidence, that the damages were caused by the combined action of wind and water, and not solely by the wind. The charge was submitted without objection. Under these findings, the judgment was the correct one. It is settled Texas law, under this exclusionary clause, that when there are two concurrent causes of damages, one of which is excluded by the contract, there is no coverage. Palatine Ins. Co. v. Coyle, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W. 560, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 973; Franklin Fire Insurance Co. of Philadelphia v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 470; Palatine Ins. Co. v. Petrovich, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W. 929. This is also the rule in most other jurisdictions. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Nelson, 64 Kan. 115, 67 P. 440; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Crutchfield, 160 Ky. 802, 170 S.W. 187, L.R.A.1915B, 1094; Gelber v. Paramount Fire Ins. Co. (Mo.App.), 219 S.W.2d 871; Brindley v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 35 N.J. Super. 1, 113 A.2d 53; Newark Trust Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 3 Cir., 237 F. 788, 791.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

POPE, Justice.

Plaintiff, Paul Cox, sued to recover damages to his pier and bath house under the terms of his insurance policy with Queen Insurance Company of America. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant upon jury findings, the force of which brought the damages within the express exclusionary provisions of the contract. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff owned a pier and bath house at Fulton Beach in Aransas County, which were damaged on September 11, 1961. His policy provided that he was insured against direct loss resulting from windstorm, hurricane, or hail. The insurance contract contained this exclusionary clause:

“Unless specifically named hereon, this Company shall not be liable for loss * * * caused * * * (b) by snow storm, tidal wave, high water, or overflow, whether driven by wind or not; * *

The jury found, supported by the evidence, that the damages were caused by the combined action of wind and water, and not solely by the wind. The charge was submitted without objection. Under these findings, the judgment was the correct one. It is settled Texas law, under this exclusionary clause, that when there are two concurrent causes of damages, one of which is excluded by the contract, there is no coverage. Palatine Ins. Co. v. Coyle, Tex.Civ.App., 196 S.W. 560, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 973; Franklin Fire Insurance Co. of Philadelphia v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 470; Palatine Ins. Co. v. Petrovich, Tex.Civ.App., 235 S.W. 929. This is also the rule in most other jurisdictions. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Nelson, 64 Kan. 115, 67 P. 440; National Fire Insurance Co. v. Crutchfield, 160 Ky. 802, 170 S.W. 187, L.R.A.1915B, 1094; Gelber v. Paramount Fire Ins. Co. (Mo.App.), 219 S.W.2d 871; Brindley v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 35 N.J. Super. 1, 113 A.2d 53; Newark Trust Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 3 Cir., 237 F. 788, 791.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 S.W.2d 206, 1963 Tex. App. LEXIS 2225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-queen-insurance-company-of-america-texapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack