Court Opinion

ID: 9457638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:28:25.26272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:26.533733
License: Public Domain

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
In the first entitled case, the plaintiffs-appellants complain that there is no reference in the District Court opinion adopted by this Court deciding the issue raised in both courts that Vernon’s Ann. Texas Civil Statutes Article 911b, Section 13 makes it mandatory that the insurance policy cover “claims for loss or damages from personal injury or loss of, or injury to property occurring during the term of said * * * policies, and arising out of the actual operation of such motor carrier,” while Texas Railroad Commission Motor Vehicle Endorsement Form 77 attached to the policy here involved provides that, “The obligations and promises of this endorsement shall be effective only while the automobiles covered by this policy are being operated within the boundaries of the State of Texas.” The plaintiffs-appellants urge that they are entitled to a decision of their insistence that the limitation of coverage to claims while the vehicles are being operated within the State of Texas is illegal and the policy should be reformed.
We think that Texas Railroad Commission Endorsement 77 conforms in this respect with the Texas Statute when read in the light of the definition of “motor carrier” in Section 1(g) of the same statute. That definition contains a limitation that it applies to operation “over any public highway in this State.”
Further, we doubt whether Texas had the power to extend its insurance requirement beyond the State’s boundaries, particularly in the light of federal regulation of motor carriers in interstate commerce by Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. That Act provides in part:
“§ 302. Application of provisions
X X * * • * -X-
“(b) (1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect the powers of taxation of the several States or to authorize a motor carrier to do an intrastate business on the highways of any State, or to interfere with the exclusive exercise by each State of the power of regulation of intrastate commerce by motor carriers on the highways thereof.”
We hold that the plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled to have the policy reformed to cover claims arising out of operations of the motor carrier beyond the boundaries of the State of Texas.
It is ordered that the petitions for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same are hereby
Denied.