Court Opinion

ID: 9777430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:11:04.26769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:54.005166
License: Public Domain

DIES, Chief Justice
(concurring).
The paramount consideration here is which view best serves public policy. It is this writer’s contention that public policy is far better served under the majority view than the dissent.
For, if the dissent should become the rule, we shall have said to this insurance company and all others, “You cannot legally except a family member (or any other person) from uninsured motorist coverage without also excepting the insured.” If we give insurance companies this option only, many insured persons in Texas will end up with no uninsured motorist coverage at all in their policies. No one will argue this is what the Legislature intended.
Of course, one can argue that the insured, as Letitia Greene, could seek insurance from the assigned risk pool. But, how many would? And, if it be one or the other, should it be the mother or the son with the bad driving record ?
Only the Legislature and the State Board of Insurance can provide a complete answer to the problems presented by this case. Until then, it is far better for us to make it possible for Letitia Greene, and those like her, to have uninsured motorist coverage on herself than in practice to require complete waiver to obtain a policy of insurance.