Donald R. Cain v. Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company
448 S.W.3d 550
Tex. App.2014Background
- May 2003: Madison obtained an auto policy from Progressive and rejected UIM and PIP in writing.
- Policy renewed in six-month increments for four years with Madison and Bradford as named insureds.
- July 20, 2007 accident gave Cain a claim under the policy in effect at that time.
- April–May 2007: Coleman added as a driver/household resident; renewal declarations flagged prior rejection of UIM/PIP.
- Policy history including 2005 changes and 2007 Coleman addition is asserted to be a renewal policy under Tex. Ins. Code §§ 1952.101(c), 1952.152(b).
- Cain, as Madison’s spouse, sued Progressive seeking UIM/PIP; Progressive moved for summary judgment arguing the Applicable Policy is a renewal policy exempt from providing those coverages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Applicable Policy is a renewal policy under §1952.101(c) and §1952.152(b). | Cain asserts the Coleman addition created a new policy. | Progressive argues the chain remains a renewal policy despite Coleman. | Yes; the Applicable Policy is a renewal policy. |
| Whether the addition of Coleman as named insured destroyed renewal status and required a new written rejection. | Cain contends Coleman’s addition constituted a new policy not renewal. | Progressive contends the unbroken policy chain remains renewal; Coleman’s status as named insured does not break renewal. | No; renewal status preserved despite Coleman’s addition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Old American County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 149 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. 2004) (remedial cure for written-rejection rule construed liberally)
- Payne v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. of Am., No official reporter cited in opinion (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (cited as precedent for renewal policy concept in statutory predecessor)
- Poteet v. State and County Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 7 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1999) (renewal policy under statutory predecessor; continued coverage despite changes)
- Berry v. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 782 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. App.—Waco 1989) (renewal policy interpretation in Texas)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (evidentiary standard on summary judgment)
- M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (grounds for affirming summary judgment when grounds exist)