Court Opinion

ID: 9829036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:56:50.147411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.655268
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 Appellee makes vigorous protest to our consideration, as evidence, of the contents of the signed application for insurance, under the familiar principles of law discussed in 24 Tex.Jur. (Insurance), § 374. Upon the trial herein, the policy was not in evidence, appellee rejecting the contention of appellant that the “specimen policy” introduced duplicated the printed terms of the contract sued on. Under this situation, we cannot presume the entire contract between the parties, referred to in the statutes,. Articles 4732, 5050 R.S., did not include the application in question. Even when admittedly not a' part of the policy, as required by law, the terms of the application, in many cases, may be availed of as a defense by the insurance company, First Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Pedigo et al., Tex.Com.App., 50 S.W.2d 1091; and, being signed by the assured, was properly introduced as an admission of the true character of the written contract between the parties. 17 Tex.Jur. (Evidence) § 230. What we mean to say and hold is that, under the direct and controlling facts here, the policy had no double indemnity clause, and, as a matter of law, there was no consideration for any increased benefit above the amount of $234. Appellee’s motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
Overruled.