Court Opinion

ID: 9777072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:54:39.714438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:47.525670
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the judgment of the Court, but do not agree with the reasons given for its decision. There is always danger of writing bad law in these controversies between two insurance companies where it is clear that one or both is liable. It seems to me that in this instance the Court goes out of its way to restrict the meaning of the term “using” in the policy definition of an additional insured. The purpose of the omnibus clause is to extend to third persons the same protection that is afforded the named insured when making a similar “use” of the vehicle, except as the coverage may be affected by exclusions or limitations found elsewhere in the policy. It should be given a liberal construction that will accomplish this purpose. Let us assume that someone is injured as a result of negligence of a son in filling the tank of his father’s automobile while the vehicle *546is in the garage at the father’s home. The son resides in a different household. His filling the tank .is not related in any way to his driving the vehicle but is done simply as a courtesy to and with the permission of his father, the named insured. As the majority construes the policy here, it will afford no protection to the son. In my opinion this is not in accordance with the intention of the parties to the insurance contract.
State Farm’s policy specifically provides that “use” of the automobile includes the loading and unloading thereof. For the purpose of determining coverage and the persons insured, I fail to see any material difference between loading one tank on a truck with butane in order that the same may be transported to a different location and filling another tank on the truck with the same fuel to provide energy for its operation. Entirely aside from the “loading and unloading” clause, moreover, I agree with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that “fueling the truck for the journey was just as much a ‘use’ of it as making the journey would be.” Red Ball Motor Freight Co., Inc. v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co., 5th Cir., 189 F.2d 374. I agree with the Court of Civil Appeals, therefore, that Western is an additional insured under the State Farm policy.
State Farm also relies on the provision excluding “an owned automobile while used by any person while such person is employed or otherwise engaged in the automobile business.” It is unnecessary to determine the exact meaning and effect of that exclusion here, because in my opinion and for the reasons set out below Pan American is not entitled to recover even if State Farm’s policy did protect Western. The exclusion, unlike the definition of an additional insured, should be given a strict construction, and I am inclined to the view that it applies only while the vehicle is used exclusively by a person employed or otherwise engaged in the automobile business. I have not investigated the question, however, and simply assume that the exclusion does not deprive Western of coverage under the State Farm policy.
Although not mentioned by the majority, the comprehensive liability policy issued by Pan American to Western had a fleet endorsement covering the tank truck from which butane was being transferred into the Liggett vehicle. This policy also provided that “use of an automobile includes the loading and unloading thereof,” and contained substantially the same pro rata and excess provisions as the State Farm policy. The Court of Civil Appeals held that State Farm was primarily liable for the settlement and expenses, and that the Pan American policy afforded excess coverage. On the basis of the assumption mentioned above, I agree that State Farm is primarily liable since the accident arose out of the use of the Liggett vehicle, but it is my opinion that Pan American’s coverage is also primary and not excess in view of the fact that the accident also arose out of the use of the truck covered by its policy. Since the two companies were each liable for a pro rata share of the loss, the case is governed by the rule that the company which pays more than its proportionate part cannot recover the excess from the other insurer. Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Hicks Rubber Co., 140 Tex. 586, 169 S.W.2d 142. I agree with the majority, therefore, that Pan American should take nothing by this suit.
POPE, J., joins in this concurring opinion.