United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baldwin Motor Co.

18 S.W.2d 826, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 726
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 23, 1929
DocketNo. 3704.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 S.W.2d 826 (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baldwin Motor 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
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baldwin Motor Co., 18 S.W.2d 826, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 726 (Tex. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

HODGES, J.

In July, 1927, the appellant issued a policy insuring the appellee against loss resulting from liability for injuries or death and for damage or destruction of property under certain conditions named in the policy. The appellee is a private corporation, and at the time the policy was issued was engaged in selling automobiles, and for that purpose had established and was maintaining agencies and garages at Tyler, Henderson, Jacksonville, and Nacogdoches, all within the state of Texas. In 1928, while the policy of insurance was in force, a suit was filed against the appellee by Homer E. Rogers and wife in the district court of Angelina county, Tex., to recover damages for the negligent killing of their minor daughter by an alleged employee of the appellee. Notice of the filing of that suit was given to the appellant by the Baldwin Motor Company, and demand made that appellant make the necessary defenses. .But appellant refused to defend the suit, on the ground that it was not covered by the policy of insurance. Upon notice of that refusal the appellee employed attorneys and took such other steps as it thought necessary to present its defenses. After investigation into the basis of that suit, and negotiation with the interested parties, the attorneys for the appellee secured a judgment of dismissal. This suit was then filed by the Baldwin Motor Company against the appellant for reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees and for other expenses incurred in preparing for the defense against that suit. The amount sued for is $1,250 for attorneys’ fees and $364.79 as expenses of investigation. These sums, it is alleged, were paid out by the appellee for the purposes above stated. The additional sum of $750 was also asked for as compensation for attorneys employed in this proceeding.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and a judgment rendered against the appellant for the sum of $1,250 as attorneys’ fees and $364.79 as expenses, no further allowance being made for reimbursement for attorneys’ fees paid or in the prosecution of this suit.

As a defense t<? this suit, appellant pleads the same ground upon which it refused to defend the Rogers — that it was not one covered by the provisions of the insurance policy.

It is not contended that the policy bound the appellant to defend every character of suit for damages that might be instituted against the Baldwin Motor Company. Its obligation was limited to those suits wherein a judgment might be recovered against the Baldwin Motor Company which the appellant contracted to satisfy in whole or in part. The nature of the suit instituted by Rogers and wife, and what judgment they might have recovered if the suit had been successfully prosecuted, can best be determined by the terms of the original- petition. The substance of that petition may be briefly stated as follows: The plaintiffs resided in Angelina county, Tex. The Baldwin Motor Company was a domestic corporation doing business in the state of Texas, with its principal office and domicile in the city of Tyler, Smith county, Tex., and with a local office and place of business and local agency in the city of Lufkin, Angelina county, Tex., where it was doing business on the 5th day of March, 1928. The plaintiffs were the father and mother of Florine Eugenia Rogers, a girl of seven years of age, who was killed within the city limits of Lufkin on the date above mentioned by the negligent operation of an automobile by De Loach O’Neil, a negro boy fifteen years of age. O’Neil was at the time in the performance of his duties as an em *827 ployee of the Baldwin Motor Company, and was operating a ear owned by that company in furtherance of its business. The negligence alleged was: (1) O’Neil was driving the car at a high, dangerous, and reckless rate of speed, 40 miles per hour, through a densely populated portion of the city of Luf-kin. (2) He was operating the car in violation of article 789 of Yernon’s Criminal Statutes of the State of Texas, which fixed a limit of 35 miles per hour, and in violation of traffic regulations applicable to incorporated cities and towns. (3) He was violating the laws of the road in driving his car on the wrong side of the street. (4) The car which O’Neil was driving was equipped with defective and inadequate brakes. (5) The Baldwin Motor Company was guilty of negligence in employing and knowingly retaining in its service a boy only fifteen years of age, who was ignorant and incompetent and wholly disqualified for the work he was attempting to do. The petition closed with a prayer for damages in the sum of $20,000.

Counsel for appellant calls attention to two specific averments in that petition, which they claim state a cause of action not. covered by the policy. One is that the age of the alleged employee, whose negligence caused the death of the child, is stated as less than sixteen years, and that the policy sued on expressly exempts the insurer from liability for damages resulting from the negligence of employees under sixteen years of age. The other averment is that the agency with which that employee was connected was located at Lufkin, Angelina county, whereas, according to its terms, the policy of insurance covers only the acts of those employees connected with the agencies at the four places designated in the policy — Tyler, Henderson, Jacksonville, and Nacogdoches.

The material portions of the policy of insurance are as follows:

“United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Baltimore, Maryland, a stock company (hereinafter called the company), in consideration of the premium and subject to the terms, limits and conditions set forth herein, does hereby insure the assured, named and described as such in the Schedule of Statements hereto, Against liability for loss and or expense, arising or resulting from claims upon the Assured for damages in consequence of an accident occurring within the limits of the United States and Canada during the term of this policy, resulting in

“Injury to Persons
“(A) Bodily injuries, or death resulting at any time therefrom, suffered by any person or persons, not herein excepted, and
“Damage to Property of Others.
“(B) Damage to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, excepting property in the custody of the Assured and for which the Assured is legally responsible; or property carried in or on any automobile of the" assured by reason of
“(1) The operation and or maintenance of an Automobile Garage and or sales agency and or service station, including the repair shop, if any, conducted in connection therewith, all as located and described in the Schedule of Statements of this policy.
“(2) The ownership, maintenance, operation and or use of any style, type or make of automobile, tractor or trailer by any person, not herein excepted, for any purpose, not herein excepted, incidental to the Assured’s business of operating an Automobile Garage and or sales agency and or Service Station all as located and described in the Schedule of Statements of this policy, and for pleasure use, including the transportation or delivery of goods or merchandise for prospective customers as is strictly incidental to the demonstration and sale of automobiles.

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

Related

U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Baldwin Motor Co.
34 S.W.2d 815 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 S.W.2d 826, 1929 Tex. App. LEXIS 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-v-baldwin-motor-co-texapp-1929.