Holyfield v. Members Mutual Insurance Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Holyfield v. Members Mutual Insurance Co.

572 S.W.2d 672, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 34, 1978 Tex. LEXIS 410

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 11, 1978

DocketB-7662

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 572 S.W.2d 672 (Holyfield v. Members Mutual Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holyfield v. Members Mutual Insurance Co., 572 S.W.2d 672, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 34, 1978 Tex. LEXIS 410 (Tex. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This suit originated when Holyfield sought to recover Personal Injury Protec *673 tion (PIP) benefits under a policy he had purchased from Members Mutual Insurance Company. The policy covered the two vehicles which were scheduled and a separate premium was paid for the PIP coverage on each vehicle.

The policy basically limited PIP coverage to those injuries sustained while riding either in: 1) an owned and scheduled vehicle; 2) a replacement vehicle as defined by the policy; or 3) an unowned vehicle. Holy-field’s son, who was covered by the policy, was injured while riding a motorcycle which was owned by Holyfield but not scheduled on the policy. Therefore, under the terms of the policy, he was not covered and the insurer denied coverage.

A summary judgment was rendered for the insurer, Members Mutual, on the basis that an accident which occurs on an owned but unscheduled vehicle was excluded by the policy. The court of civil appeals sitting in Dallas affirmed. 566 S.W.2d 28.

Holyfield bases his claim for benefits on the decision of Western Alliance Insurance Co. v. Dennis, 529 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1975, no writ). That decision concluded that an exclusion similar to the one in the present case, which limited PIP coverage to only those injuries suffered in owned vehicles that were scheduled on the policy, was an unauthorized limitation on the coverage required by Article 5.06-3 Texas Insurance Code Annotated. We disapprove that decision and its construction of the Texas Insurance Code and its interpretation of Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 512 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.1974). We agree with the result reached in the instant case.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

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

PER CURIAM.

This suit originated when Holyfield sought to recover Personal Injury Protec *673 tion (PIP) benefits under a policy he had purchased from Members Mutual Insurance Company. The policy covered the two vehicles which were scheduled and a separate premium was paid for the PIP coverage on each vehicle.

The policy basically limited PIP coverage to those injuries sustained while riding either in: 1) an owned and scheduled vehicle; 2) a replacement vehicle as defined by the policy; or 3) an unowned vehicle. Holy-field’s son, who was covered by the policy, was injured while riding a motorcycle which was owned by Holyfield but not scheduled on the policy. Therefore, under the terms of the policy, he was not covered and the insurer denied coverage.

A summary judgment was rendered for the insurer, Members Mutual, on the basis that an accident which occurs on an owned but unscheduled vehicle was excluded by the policy. The court of civil appeals sitting in Dallas affirmed. 566 S.W.2d 28.

Holyfield bases his claim for benefits on the decision of Western Alliance Insurance Co. v. Dennis, 529 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1975, no writ). That decision concluded that an exclusion similar to the one in the present case, which limited PIP coverage to only those injuries suffered in owned vehicles that were scheduled on the policy, was an unauthorized limitation on the coverage required by Article 5.06-3 Texas Insurance Code Annotated. We disapprove that decision and its construction of the Texas Insurance Code and its interpretation of Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 512 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.1974). We agree with the result reached in the instant case.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 S.W.2d 672, 22 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 34, 1978 Tex. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holyfield-v-members-mutual-insurance-co-tex-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack