 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Nguyen2/29/1996
Judgement affirmed as reformed and Opinion filed.
February 29, 1996
O P I N I O N
We must decide whether the family member exclusion in appellees' automobile liability insurance policy applies and, therefore, limits the amount of their recovery. We must also decide whether their child, whose entire six-day life was spent in a hospital, was a "resident" of appellees' "household." We hold that the child was a resident of the household and that the family member exclusion limits appellees' recovery to $20,000. Therefore, we reform the summary judgement by reducing it from $100,000 to $20,000, and as so reformed, we affirm the judgment.
State Farm issued appellees an automobile liability policy, with policy limits on liability of $100,000. In 1992, Mrs. Nguyen, who was pregnant, was in a car accident. She sustained injuries that resulted in an emergency cesarean section. A daughter was born. She lived for six days but then died from her injuries in the accident. It is undisputed that the child spent her life in the hospital and never went home to her parents' house.
Dr. Nguyen sued his wife for the child's wrongful death caused by her negligent driving. State Farm defended the lawsuit. The trial court rendered a $100,000 judgement against Mrs. Nguyen. Dr. Nguyen, as third party beneficiary, and Mrs. Nguyen, as insured, sought insurance coverage from State Farm for the amount of judgment. State Farm denied coverage under the family member exclusion in the policy and filed a declaratory judgement action. The Nguyens brought a counterclaim, also asking for a declaratory judgement of coverage under the policy.
State Farm and the Nguyens filed motions for summary judgment. The Nguyens asserted that the family member exclusion in the policy did not apply to the facts of this case because their child never resided in Mrs. Nguyen's household. In the alternative, the Nguyens asserted that, if their child were considered a resident of the household, the exclusion is void because it leaves Mrs. Nguyen uninsured, contrary to the statutory public policy that all drivers be insured. Therefore, the Nguyens contend, they are entitled to recover the policy limits of $100,000.
State Farm contends that the family member exclusion denied all coverage, or alternatively, if the family member exclusion was void up to the minimum statutory limits of $20,000, then it still excluded coverage in excess of the minimum limits.
The judgement states that the family member exclusion is inapplicable to these facts. We conclude from this language that the trial court granted summary judgement on the Nguyens' first ground, that the exclusion did not apply because their infant daughter was never a resident of their household. When, as here, the order states the ground relied on for the judgment, the summary judgement can be affirmed only if that ground is meritorious. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374, 380 (Tex. 1993). Therefore, we will consider only that ground.
After this summary judgement was granted in the trial court, the supreme court ruled that the family member exclusion was valid. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sanford, 879 S.W.2d 9, 10 (Tex. 1994); National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Johnson, 879 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Tex. 1993). In both cases, the scope of the court's judgement was determined by the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Cornyn, which concluded that the family member exclusion is invalid only to the extent it conflicts with the minimum liability limit of the Texas Safety Responsibility Act, former TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6701h, Section(s) 1(10). Sanford, 879 S.W.2d at 10; Joh
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|