Court Opinion

ID: 9769933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:08:24.178588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.260909
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
 We adhere to our conclusion that plaintiff’s suit depends upon Form 10. This endorsement, or rider, is not merely a provision for determining how many automobiles are insured from time to time. It is the very basis of the contract, contains provisions which constitute integral parts of defendant’s promise to plaintiff, imports into the contract provisions which appear in the policy apart from the three endorsements, and is controlling insofar as it conflicts with those parts of the contract apart from the three endorsements. See: National Mutual Benefit Association v. Aaron, Tex.Com.App., 67 S.W.2d 855; Drane v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 139 Tex. 101, 161 S.W.2d 1057 at page 1062 ; 32 C.J. 1159 (Sec. 270); 44 C.J.S., Insurance, § 300, P. 1205 ; 29 Am.Jur., 194 (Sec. 175). The five paragraphs of Form 10 listed under the heading “Elsewhere” are not “exceptions” within the meaning of Rule 94, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, to the coverages listed in Item 3 of the Declarations, but are, as we construe them, elements of the statement of defendant’s basic promise to plaintiff, as distinguished from exclusions subsequently made from a broader promise. We construe the coverages in Item 3 of the Declarations as 'being referable to the specific hazards listed in Form 10 instead of said hazards being exceptions to those coverages. The question is one of construction and the nature of the problem is indicated in Gorski v. New York Life Ins. Co., 315 Mass. 17, 51 N.E.2d 761 and Anthony v. Mercantile Mutual Accident Ass’n, 162 Mass. 354, 38 N.E. 973, 26 L.R.A. 406. It may foe true that our construction limits Coverage E-l (Collision or Upset) to the only location which is specified in Form 10; but such a contract may very well be a reasonable one. We cannot say as a matter of law that the parties would not have made such a contract. We agree with plaintiff that a contract of insurance is to be construed in favor of the insured, but this rule of construction cannot come into operation unless the contract is fairly susceptible of different interpretations, one of which is favorable to the insured; and under the facts before us the rule to be applied is not this, but, instead, is that which requires the contract to be read and construed as a whole and given a construction which brings its several parts into harmony. We do not regard our construction of the contract as one which works a forfeiture against the insured.
Some changes have been made in the original opinion. As changed, the opinion now on file and this opinion written on motion for rehearing, constitutes the opinion of the court adjudicating this 'appeal.
Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing is overruled.