Case Title: Great American R. Ins. Co. v. San Antonio Pl. Sup. Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: A-10159

State: texas

Court: Texas Supreme Court

Date: 1965-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
391 S.W.2d 41 (1965) GREAT AMERICAN RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SAN ANTONIO PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY, Respondent. No. A-10159. Supreme Court of Texas. April 21, 1965. Rehearing Denied June 23, 1965. *43 Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Churchill, Dallas, for petitioner. LeLaurin, Chamberlin, Guenther & Murry, Bettie J. Stock, San Antonio, with above firm, for respondent. GREENHILL, Justice. This is a suit by San Antonio Plumbing Supply Company, hereafter called SAPSCO, against Great American Reserve Insurance Company on a policy insuring the life of one of its officers, Sul Ross. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion of plaintiff, SAPSCO, and overruled that of defendant, Great American. Summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, holding that there was a disputed fact issue and that the trial court erred in granting the motion of SAPSCO. It also held that there was no error in overruling Great American's motion. The cause was remanded to the district court for a trial. 378 S.W.2d 141 (1964). Both parties applied to this Court for writ of error, and both applications were granted. SAPSCO complains of the reversal of its judgment, and Great American contends judgment should be rendered in its favor. We hold that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Great American is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In November, 1961, Sul Ross, Martin Reinhard, and two others were officers of SAPSCO. They decided to take out "keyman" insurance on their lives for the benefit of the company. All four men executed applications for life insurance which were furnished to them by Darrell Barnes as agent for Great American. Each application, which was made a part of the policies, contained the following language: Ross's physical examination disclosed high blood pressure and excess sugar in his urine. Barnes, the insurance agent, sent the application and the results of the physical examination to Great American's home office at Dallas. From this information, the home office "rated up" Ross's policy. Four separate policies were prepared in Dallas and sent to Barnes with instructions to have each insured sign a declaration of no change in health as an amendment to the applications. These declarations read as follows: Barnes received the four policies from Dallas on January 19, 1962, but took no action that day. The next day, January 20, he discovered that Ross was in the hospital. He had had a brain stem hemorrhage and was unconscious. Barnes went to see his unit manager, Ken Wingfield, who advised him: Barnes went to SAPSCO's office and got its check for the total amount of premiums for all four policies. The officer who wrote the check signed a declaration of no change in his own health. The check had to be countersigned by Mr. Reinhard, the president, who was found at the hospital. He signed the check and a declaration as to his own health. There is some dispute as to when the third declaration was signed; but it was signed, and the three policies were later delivered. They are not in dispute. Ross, of course, did not sign a declaration; and he died the following day, January 21, 1962. Great American returned the premium on Ross's policy, never delivered the policy on Ross, and refused to pay the face value of the policy on Ross to SAPSCO. The material fact question asserted in this case is whether SAPSCO knew that Great American had conditioned its offer to insure Sul Ross on his signing a declaration of no change in health. The Court of Civil Appeals said the issue of fact was whether the insurance agent Barnes accepted the check of SAPSCO conditioned upon the receipt of statement of no change in Ross's health. In order to decide whether there is a genuine issue as to this material fact we must carefully examine the evidence. For this reason, it is necessary to set out the relevant portions of the depositions presented on the motions for summary judgment. Barnes, the agent, gave his version of what he told Reinhard, the president of SAPSCO, at the hospital: Ken Wingfield, the insurance company's unit manager, talked to Martin Reinhard by phone on the night of January 20. Wingfield's testimony was: Mr. Reinhard could recall very little about his conversations with Barnes and Wingfield. His deposition reads: This case is similar in many respects to Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Hall, 149 Tex. 297, 232 S.W.2d 697 (1950). There the prospective insured sent in his application without filling in the amount of the premium because he and the insurance agent understood that he was overweight and would probably be required to pay a higher premium than normal. As expected the company rated up the policy and returned it to the agent. Before the agent delivered the policy, the applicant was killed in a plane crash. The company denied the existence of a contract. This Court held that the application was a mere invitation to the company to make an offer with a specified premium. The company made an offer, but it was not made known to the applicant and was never accepted. The law was stated to be: In this case, the insurance company made an offer to insure Ross at a premium of $113.80 provided his health had not changed. To accept this offer SAPSCO had to pay the premium and have Ross sign the declaration of no change in health. There is no doubt that Ross could not and did not sign such a declaration. But SAPSCO contends that this was not the offer communicated to it because it did not know the offer to insure Ross was conditioned on his signing the declaration. The Court of Civil Appeals agreed with this contention when it said that Great American's instruction to have each insured sign such a statement was in the nature of a secret instruction to its agents; and, therefore, SAPSCO would not be bound by them unless they were made known to its officers. Inherent in this conclusion is the proposition that Barnes, as agent for Great American, was clothed with apparent authority to bind the company by merely accepting the premium for the policy in question. We assume, without deciding, that this proposition is correct. The question (and a material fact) is whether the instruction from Great American to Barnes was communicated to SAPSCO. This is a summary judgment case; and in answering the above question, *47 we must follow certain rules laid down by this Court. Rule 166-A, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that summary judgment shall be rendered if it is shown that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The burden of proof is on the movant, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact are resolved against him. Tigner v. First Nat'l Bank, 153 Tex. 69, 264 S.W.2d 85 (1954); Gulbenkian v. Penn, 151 Tex. 412, 252 S.W.2d 929 (1952). In other words, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Valley Stockyards Co. v. Kinsel, 369 S.W.2d 19 (Tex.Sup.1963); Smith v. Bolin, 153 Tex. 486, 271 S.W.2d 93 (1954). If the motion involves the credibility of affiants or deponents, or the weight of the showings or a mere ground of inference, the motion should not be granted. All conflicts in the evidence are disregarded, and the evidence which tends to support the position of the party opposing the motion is accepted as true. Cowden v. Bell, 157 Tex. 44, 300 S.W.2d 286 (1957); Smith v. Bolin, supra; Gulbenkian v. Penn, supra. Evidence which favors the movant's position is not considered unless it is uncontradicted. If such uncontradicted evidence is from an interested witness, it cannot be considered as doing more than raising an issue of fact, unless it is clear, direct and positive and there are no circumstances in evidence tending to discredit or impeach such testimony. Cochran v. Woolgrowers Central Storage Co., 140 Tex. 184, 166 S.W.2d 904 (1943). This exception is especially true where the opposite party has the means and opportunity of disproving the testimony, if it is not true, and fails to do so. Valley Stockyards Co. v. Kinsel, supra; James T. Taylor & Son, Inc. v. Arlington Ind. School Dist., 160 Tex. 617, 335 S.W.2d 371 (1960); Owen Dev. Co. v. Calvert, 157 Tex. 212, 302 S.W.2d 640 at 642 (1957); McGuire v. City of Dallas, 141 Tex. 170, 170 S.W.2d 722 (1943); Simonds v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 134 Tex. 332, 136 S.W.2d 207 (1940). After all the evidence has been sifted in this manner, the Court must determine whether the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Wingfield's telephone conversation with Reinhard on the night of January 20 cannot be considered because there is conflicting testimony as to whether it occurred before or after Reinhard signed the check. We must assume it was afterwards, and anything Wingfield said at that time would be immaterial. Reinhard said, and we accept it as the truth, that they never told him the policy was or was not in force; they made no representation about when it would go into effect; and Barnes did not make any statement as to whether the check put the insurance in force. Barnes' testimony lends support to Reinhard's statement. However, Reinhard's testimony does not contradict all that Barnes said, and we must consider uncontradicted evidence for the movant. Barnes said he told Reinhard that Ross would have to sign a declaration and that he (Barnes) did not know how the thing would work out; that it would be up to the company. Even if Barnes is an interested witness,[3] we may consider these statements because they are clear and positive and are not discredited by any circumstances in the record. Reinhard had the opportunity to contradict this testimony and failed to do so. It is also uncontradicted that Reinhard, the president of SAPSCO, and at least one other officer signed declarations of no change in health either before or at the same time the check was signed. The language in these declarations quoted on page 43, supra, compels the conclusion that its execution was a prerequisite to the completion of the insurance contract. We find nothing in the *48 record which would warrant an assumption by SAPSCO that Ross was to be treated any differently from the other three men. We hold that there is no genuine issue as to whether SAPSCO knew Great American's offer to insure Sul Ross was conditioned on his signing a declaration of no change in health and that the home office would have to consider any waiver of that requirement. Great American is therefore entitled as a matter of law to a summary judgment. The judgments of the courts below are reversed, and judgment is here rendered that plaintiff take nothing. [1] Emphasis throughout opinion is supplied. [2] Further omissions of questions and answers are not indicated in the interest of brevity. [3] Barnes was a third party defendant. At the time of the deposition he no longer worked for Great American. His wife is related to Reinhard's wife.