Court Opinion

ID: 9668256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:07:31.588566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.137508
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent because I do not believe the majority properly applies the offset allowed under the underinsured motorist coverage. I do not think Allstate is liable for prejudgment interest when the damages sustained by Collier were less than the amount of the offset to which Allstate was entitled.
Rita Collier was injured when the car in which she was a passenger was struck by a car driven by Cynthia Buie in Tallahasssee, Florida, on March 14, 1994. Buie had $100,-000 in liability insurance. An insurance policy issued by Allstate Indemnity Company provided $20,000 in underinsured motorist coverage to Collier. On March 5,1996, without having filed a suit, Collier settled with Buie for $75,000. She sued Allstate a few days later, and a jury found that she had sustained damages of $93,702.50. This appeal arises out of the court’s allowing Collier’s claim for prejudgment interest.
The parties agree that article 5069-1.05 of the Civil Statutes, the provision in effect prior to September 1,1997, would control the beginning date for any calculations of prejudgment interest in this case.1 The Supreme Court’s most recent modification of Cavnar conformed the common law rule with the statute and allows prejudgment interest from an accrual date of 180 days after the date the defendant receives written notice of the claim2 or the date suit is filed, whichever is earlier, at the statutory rate for prejudgment interest, computed as simple interest. See Johnson & Higgins v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507, 531-32 (Tex.1998) (citing Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.1985)). Where the parties differ, and where I differ with the majority, is in the method of applying the offset to which Allstate is entitled under the underin-sured motorist provision of its insurance policy-
*345As the majority recognizes, a suit to recover under an underinsured motorist provision is a suit on the contract, rather than a personal injury suit. See Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Kidd, 974 S.W.2d 848, 850 n. 9 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1998, pet. filed). However, because the measure of damages under the insurance policy is couched in terms of amounts that the insured is entitled to as tort damages, personal injury prejudgment interest would ordinarily apply.
Article 5.06 — 1(5) of the Insurance Code provides:
The underinsured motorist coverage shall provide for payment to the insured of all sums which he shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from owners or operators of underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury or property damage in an amount up to the limit specified in the policy, reduced by the amount recovered or recoverable from the insurer of the underinsured motor vehicle.
Tex. Ins.Code Ann. art. 5.06 — 1(5) (Vernon 1981) (emphasis added). In my view, a plain reading of the statute requires that the offset for “the amount recovered or recoverable” be made against “all sums ... for damages ... because of bodily injury or property damage.”
Applying the clear language of the statute to these facts: the underinsured motorist coverage (Allstate) shall provide for payment to the insured (Collier), in an amount up to the limit specified in the policy ($20,000), of all sums which she shall be legally entitled to recover as damages because of bodily injury or property damage ($93,702.50), from owners or operators of underinsured motor vehicles (Buie), reduced by the amount recovered or recoverable from the insurer of the under-insured motor vehicle ($100,000). The net result is zero. There being no net damages, no prejudgment interest is due.
In summary, although Collier settled with Buie for $75,000, Allstate is entitled to a credit for $100,000 — the amount recoverable. The jury found damages of $93,702.50 to be the amount of damages sustained by Collier for her bodily injuries (she did not claim property damages). Allowing Allstate an offset of the amount recoverable from Buie, $100,000, results in no net damages on which to base prejudgment interest.
I see nothing in section 5.06 of the Insurance Code that requires inclusion of prejudgment interest before applying the offset. In fact, the contrary is true. Reading “all sums” to include prejudgment interest ignores the limiting words “because of bodily injury or property damage.” Furthermore, allowing the offset before prejudgment interest is calculated is a rule that can be uniformly applied. And, it is consistent with the way settlements are treated in personal injury suits. See Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Schmidt, 935 S.W.2d 520, 524 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1996, writ denied) (trial court erred in calculating prejudgment interest before crediting settlements) (citing C & H Nationwide, Inc. v. Thompson, 810 S.W.2d 259, 275 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 903 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.1994)). In such cases prejudgment interest is computed on the reduced figure.
I would sustain Allstate’s first issue, reverse the judgment, and render a take-nothing judgment.

. Article 5069-1E.104 and Section 304.104 of the Finance Code contain the same language as former Article 5069-1.05. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 5069-1E. 104 (Vernon Supp.1998); Tex Fin. Code Ann. § 304.104 (Vernon 1998).

. Although it makes no difference in the result I would reach, I note that Collier proved the date she gave notice to Allstate rather than the date she gave notice to Buie.