You know, we miss Rodney Dangerfield. Now, the only one left on the block that does not get any respect is Texas Update. Ok, we’ll take the job…here goes. I was such an ugly kid…when I played in the sandbox, the cat kept covering me up.
A VALID REJECTION? Each Texas automobile insurance policy must provide PIP and UM coverage unless the coverages are rejected by the named insured in the manner provided by statute. This morning, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that rejection of PIP and UM coverage by the spouse of the named insured was a valid rejection even though the spouse was not listed as an insured on the policy’s declaration page.
Mrs. Sanchez applied for auto insurance in her husband’s name and signed a rejection for personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. Mr. Sanchez was the sole named insured on the policy’s declarations page. Mr. Sanchez sought UM benefits after he was severely injured by an uninsured motorist. Old American declined. The Supreme Court held that “any insured named in the policy” is synonymous with “named insured” for purposes of waiving PIP and UM coverage. The policy explicitly defined the “named insured” to include both the person named in the declaration page and that person’s spouse, if a resident of the same household. Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Sanchez (Tex. 2004).
NEWS AND NOTES: While covering another legal story at the Travis County Courthouse, TEXAS UPDATE overheard Judge Hammer tell Defendant Nail: “Relax, just give the system a chance.”
HE WAS SORE AT THE STORE: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: Mr. Silva went to Dillard’s Department Store to exchange three shirts given to him as a gift. As he cruised through the store, he was confronted by the house detective who demanded he open his bag and produce a receipt. When Mr Silva discovered he left his receipt in the car, the detective laid Silva out on his belly, cuffed him and then had him do a “perp walk” in handcuffs through the store to a back office. He was interrogated by store personnel and then bound over to the Houston police. He was then prosecuted for theft, but acquitted by the jury in a criminal trial.
Mr. Silva then sued Dillard’s for false imprisonment alleging actual and punitive damages. The jury agreed and awarded $13,124 in actual damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Dillard’s appealed saying there was no evidence to overcome the “shopkeeper’s privilege” which allows a store owner to investigate and prevent theft by detaining suspected shoplifters. The Texas Supreme court said there was enough evidence to justify a jury finding of actual damages caused by false imprisonment, but no evidence to support an award of punitive damages. Said the Supremes: “There is no clear and convincing evidence of malice in this case…” Dillard’s Department Stores v Silva (Tex. 2004).
NO GENERAL LIABILITY FOR TEXAS WORKSITE ACCIDENTS: Ok, perhaps that states it a little too broadly, but last week the Texas Supreme Court declined to review Etie v Walsh. In Etie, the lower court decided that the purposes of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act are best served by deeming immune from suit all subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors who are collectively covered by the general contractor’s workers’ compensation insurance. The Act’s deemed employer/employee relationship extends throughout all tiers of subcontractors when the general contractor has purchased workers’ compensation insurance that covers all of the workers on the site. All such participating employers/subcontractors are thus immune from suit. Also, the participating employees are fellow servants, equally entitled to workers’ compensation benefits and equally immune from suit. Etie v Wash (Tex. App.-Houston 2004, pet denied).
Did you know, or care, that past issues of TEXAS UPDATE are now available on our website. Check it out at www.chmc-law.com.
BIG TEX STUMPED BY JURY: Wednesday, a Williamson County jury took only an hour of deliberations before rebuffing the State of Texas on its claim to recover $695 in property damages to a State truck dented in a fender bender. The State spent $11,600 in attorneys fees and expenses in a vain effort to recover the small booty. The Defendant, an elderly farmer, accused the state of being a frivolous litigant. The Attorney General’s office said in statement that it had to pursue this claim “to look out for the interest of the taxpayers.” …..Sigh. State of Texas v Wheeler.