Tiffany Falkenhagen Thompson v. Geico Insurance Agency, Inc. D/B/A Geico Secure Insurance Company
527 S.W.3d 641
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Thompson insured a 2011 Infiniti G37 with GEICO, then traded it in and leased a 2015 Infiniti Q50 during the policy period but did not notify GEICO within 30 days.
- Thompson was in an accident while driving the leased Q50 and submitted a claim the day of the crash; that was the first notice GEICO received of the Q50.
- GEICO denied the claim citing the policy’s replacement-vehicle notice requirement (notify within 30 days to continue/add coverage for damage to the acquired vehicle).
- Thompson sued for breach of contract and related claims and sought a declaratory judgment that the Q50 was covered; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
- The trial court granted GEICO’s traditional summary-judgment motion and denied Thompson’s cross-motion; Thompson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy’s 30‑day replacement-vehicle notice applies to a leased vehicle | Thompson: the notice applies only to vehicles "owned" (not leased); leased vehicles are excluded, or at least the language is ambiguous and must be construed for insured | GEICO: the policy’s notice applies to any replacement vehicle (owned or leased); "owner" can include a lessee/possessor | Court: The notice requirement unambiguously applies to leased replacement vehicles; summary judgment for GEICO affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 202 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. 2006) (interpretation of insurance policies by four-corners of the document)
- Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 972 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. 1998) (read all parts of policy together to ascertain parties’ intent)
- Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Primo, 512 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2017) (party disagreement alone does not create ambiguity; both interpretations must be reasonable)
- Foust v. Old Am. Cty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 977 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) ("owner" in policy may include holder/possessor; lessee can be treated as owner for insurance purposes)
- Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003) (absence of an exclusion in policy does not create coverage)