Court Opinion

ID: 9834071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:16:34.081675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.401204
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the original opinion it was recited that the trial court, after fully reviewing the various policies and binders, had stated its fact finding to be that the parties intended their *535contract of insurance to be one in accordance with the Texas Compensation Law, which finding this court, after a like review of the statement of facts, wherein all the policies and binders were set out in full, adopted as its own. Then followed an extended description and discussion of them in their proper sequence, with quotations of such provisions tiierefrom as were deemed adequate to an understanding of their import, and a closing reiteration that all their various stipulations had been considered together. We did not, however, copy in hsee verba all the different recitations therein which appellant contended constituted the full and final contract of insurance between it and the appellee. That was not then, nor is it now, thought essential, but, in deference to the very earnest request of counsel for appellant that it be done, the court has pleasure in making these additional findings of fact:
1. Policy EY-4480, of date October 20, 1913, contains these paragraphs:
“Par. 2. To pay the compensation and to furnish or cause to be furnished the medical and surgical treatment provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Law or Laws designated in declaration 7 as they exist when this policy takes effect, excluding amendments thereto subsequently made;
“Par. 3. To indemnify the assured against loss by reason of the liability imposed by law for damages;
Par. 4. To investigate accidents involving such bodily injuries or death, to negotiate settlement of claims, and to defend suits for compensation or damages brought on account of such bodily injuries or death, in the name and on behalf of the assured, unless and until the corporation shall elect to effect settlement thereof ; and
“Par. 5. To pay all costs taxed against the assured in any legal proceeding defended by the corporation in accordance with the preceding paragraph, all interest accruing upon the judgment rendered in connection therewith, and all expenses incurred by the corporation for investigation, negotiation, or defense.”
2. In policy No. 501,507, of date April 25, 1913, occur these provisions:
“(1) To indemnify the assured against loss from the liability imposed by law upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries (including death at any time resulting therefrom) accidentally suffered, or alleged to have been» suffered, during the policy period defined in said statements, by any employe or employés of the assured while at the places designated in statement 4 by reason of work therein described;
“(2) To contest claims and to defend suits, even if groundless, made or brought against the assured on account of such bodily injuries or death, unless it shall elect to settle such claims or suits; and
“(3) To pay all costs taxed against the assured in any legal proceeding defended by the corporation according to agreement (2) above, and all interest accruing after entry of judgment upon such part of same as is not in excess of the corporation’s limit of liability as hereinafter expressed.”
“A. The corporation’s liability on account of bodily injuries to, or the death of, one person, shall be limited to the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), and, subject to the same limit for each person, the corporation’s total liability on account of bodily injuries to, or the death of, more than one person, as a result of one accident, shall be limited to the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00); but in addition to these limits the corporation will pay expense incurred by the corporation in the investigation of claims and in the defense of suits, and all sums for which the corporation may be liable under section (3) of the insuring agreements.”
3.Workmen’s Compensation Endorsement No. 141,233 embraces these recitations:
“(1) That in consideration of the' payment of the premium rates specified in paragraph 7 of this indorsement in lieu of the premium rates for which pay roll expenditure is the basis for premium calculation expressed in the policy to which this indorsement is attached, and in further consideration of the warranty contained in paragraph 5 hereof, the said policy is hereby extended to include within its terms all obligations imposed upon or assumed by the assured under any of the provisions contained in the said act in so far as the same shall have reference to the subject-matter of this insurance.
“(2) That paragraph A of the conditions of the said policy is hereby eliminated.”
“(4) That notwithstanding the said act or any part thereof is now or shall hereafter be. declared invalid or unconstitutional, all premiums provided by this indorsement shall be fully earned by the corporation, and accordingly the schedule of woi-kmen’s compensation benefits contained in the said act (as distinguished from the additional liability imposed for the recovery of damages) shall be considered a part of said policy as fully and completely as if wholly written therein, and shall be and remain a part of said policy so long as the said policy shall remain in force; but permission is given to the assured to cancel this indorsement on a pro rata basis at any time after the said act has been declared invalid or unconstitutional by the judgment of any court of last resort, and the policy itself shall then remain in full force and effect as originally written.”
In the motion for rebearing attention is also called to an inadvertent but wholly unimportant error in the statement of some figures in the former opinion, where it was said, “even though one hundred employés should sustain damages of $5,000 each, total-» ing $100,000,” etc., when it should have read twenty employés instead of one hundred. In acknowledging the opportunity to make the correction, attention is arrested by the fact that the error in the figures actually used but emphasized and accentuated the point of the argument the court was making.
The motion for rehearing, after having been carefully read and considered, is overruled.
Overruled.