Parkins v. Texas Farmer Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Parkins v. Texas Farmer Insurance Co.

641 S.W.2d 254, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5636

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 23, 1982

DocketNo. 21062

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 641 S.W.2d 254 (Parkins v. Texas Farmer Insurance Co.) 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

Parkins v. Texas Farmer Insurance Co., 641 S.W.2d 254, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5636 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in which Dennis Parkins was denied recovery from Texas Farmers Insurance Company. Parkins contends the trial court erred in granting Texas Farmers’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We do not agree and thus affirm.

Parkins sued Texas Farmers under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act alleging Farmers represented they would issue a standard fire policy to insure a building but, in fact, issued a homeowners policy which did not provide coverage for the fire loss he suffered.

At trial Parkins obtained a favorable jury verdict but Farmers filed a motion for judgment N.O.V. alleging Parkins failed to show he had been adversely affected by the alleged misrepresentation.¹ Because Par-kins failed to adduce any evidence that his fire loss would have been covered by any fire policy, see, Stinson v. Cravens, Dargan & Company, 579 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, no writ), the trial court was correct in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and costs taxed against appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in which Dennis Parkins was denied recovery from Texas Farmers Insurance Company. Parkins contends the trial court erred in granting Texas Farmers’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We do not agree and thus affirm.

Parkins sued Texas Farmers under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act alleging Farmers represented they would issue a standard fire policy to insure a building but, in fact, issued a homeowners policy which did not provide coverage for the fire loss he suffered.

At trial Parkins obtained a favorable jury verdict but Farmers filed a motion for judgment N.O.V. alleging Parkins failed to show he had been adversely affected by the alleged misrepresentation.¹ Because Par-kins failed to adduce any evidence that his fire loss would have been covered by any fire policy, see, Stinson v. Cravens, Dargan & Company, 579 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1979, no writ), the trial court was correct in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and costs taxed against appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 S.W.2d 254, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 5636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkins-v-texas-farmer-insurance-co-texapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack