James Bradley Morrison v. James Campbell, 431 S.W.3d 611

Morrison's vehicle struck Campbell's motorcycle; motorcycle sustained damage and was declared a total loss.
Insurer denied Campbell's claim in June 2010 for fault-based reasons; later offered/paid $100,000 for personal injuries in January 2011.
In February–March 2011 Campbell sought damages for motorcycle/property loss, asserting loss of use and rental value during the repair period.
Insurer made later offers in April 2011; Campbell's attorney accepted a settlement for the motorcycle’s value and clothing, but not loss of use.
June 2011 Campbell sued Morrison for loss of use damages; Morrison moved for summary judgment asserting loss of use is unavailable in total-loss cases.
Trial court denied summary judgment; agreed interlocutory appeal was certified to address whether loss of use is recoverable when a total loss exists and payment is delayed by insurer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether loss of use damages are recoverable when the insured vehicle is a total loss and the insurer unreasonably delays payment	Campbell: insurer delay allows loss of use damages despite total loss	Morrison: rule forbids loss of use in total-loss cases	Loss of use damages available when insurer delays payment on a total loss

Waples-Platter Co. v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 156 Tex. 234 (Tex. 1956) (loss of use included in market-value award; double recovery concern)
King v. McGuff, 234 S.W.2d 403 (Tex. 1950) (interest as substitute for loss of use in total destruction cases)
Mondragon v. Austin, 954 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997) (reconsideration of loss of use in total destruction; context for insurer delay case)
Lone Star Gas Co. v. Hutton, 58 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1933) (destruction vs. rent/damages framework groundwork)
Reynolds v. Bank of Am. Nat’l T. & S. Ass’n, 345 P.2d 926 (California 1959) (loss of use rationale in other jurisdictions)