*1 687 the occupying forded “non-relatives” while it is premise this
additional vehicle. From charge premium
argued that the additional protection that the grossly
is excessive or inadequate. grossly
received therefor is so, may might also be
That well but it be the
argued holding that under as to our exclusion, the
effect of the statute on the
premium charge including for the first au- policy in the is less
tomobile somewhat attempt adequate.
than to ex- We make no
plore here, the questions these because Board
State of Insurance is vested with power authority”
“sole and exclusive and just, adequate
to fix reasonable and rates premiums charged
of to be and collected
by all insurers writing insurance on motor in
vehicles this State. V.A.T.S. Insurance
Code, Art. 5.01.
The for rehearing motions are overruled.
No further motion for rehearing will be
entertained.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNI COMPANY, Petitioner, TY
v. Respondent.
Robert A. TURNER,
No. B-4232.
Supreme Court of Texas. Nations, Cross, Parnham, Delhomme & 19, June 1974. Nations, Houston, Howard peti- L. for Rehearing July 24, Denied 1974. tioner. McConnico, Krist & Krist, Ronald D. Houston, respondent. for PER CURIAM.
The of Appeals Court Civil has held that the stated policy limits of the uninsured motorist provided coverage by single a mul- ti-car policy are to be “stacked” “pyra or mided” necessary where pay damages to 688 *2 “pyramiding’ does “stacking” or tion of recover entitled to insured is
the named liability the limits of of not turn on whether result as a motorist an uninsured from separately for each only or driving or are once stated insured was the a collision while the by The reference to scheduled vehicle. covered the vehicles occupying one of single policy limits has statement of been Indem Accident & policy. Hartford the opinion original in Tucker. Turner, Tex.Civ.App., 498 from our S.W. deleted nity v.Co. de recent to our contrary is 2d 8. This rehearing The motion for is overruled. v. Co. Fire Ins. in cision Westchester rehearing en- further motion for will be No 679, there Tucker, 512 Tex.Sup., S.W.2d tertained. in the es material difference being no provi policy relevant the facts or sential to payment benefits The medical
sions. into paid entitled were plaintiff is
which only court, and the the trial registry
the of ow is the amount in the case
question now motor the uninsured under ing plaintiff to Petitioners, al., William KEMP et provisions of the coverage. Under ist Procedure, v. 483, Rules of Civil Texas Rule error of application for writ the grant we FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY al., Respondents. re argument, hearing oral and, without NEW et OF YORK below the courts judgments of the verse No. B-4487. for court to the trial the cause and remand Supreme of Court Texas. for plaintiff’s favor in entry judgment of adjudged appeal are $10,000.00. of Costs 25, July 1974. trial in the and costs plaintiff, against 25, Rehearing July Denied 1974. by that court. be court will assessed REHEARING MOTION FOR ON
Shortly deciding after Westchester Tucker, 512 Tex.Sup., S.W.
Fire Ins. Co. v. the judgment of 679, the reversed
2d we case present in the Appeals Civil of
Court court the trial to the cause
and remanded plain of in favor entry judgment
for of original $10,000.00. Our
tiff Turner for the declara that in Tucker noted
opinion considera there under policies the
tions in liability for of only one limit
tion stated each limit for only one person and
each here, rehearing for In his motion amount. to the our attention
plaintiff Turner calls policy in his declarations
fact that the of liability each for separate limits of
show not, This vehicles. does
the four scheduled or any ambiguity
however, give rise to the limit of upper
uncertainty as to the by sustained liability injuries for
insurer’s acci any one of person as the result
one provisions are policy the all
dent. When ques-
considered, that the opinion it is our