Thе facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.
Petitioners brought this suit to recover from the respondent insurance companies (which issued petitioners automobile liability policies 1 ) the difference between the amount petitioners recovered from Smith, whо proximately caused the accident that led to petitioners’ damages, and the $10,000.00 per person limit of their own policies’ uninsured motorist coverage. The policies purchased by petitioners from respondents defined “uninsured аutomobile” to include
an automobile or trailer with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which there is, in at least the amounts specifiеd by the financial responsibility law of the state in which the insured automobile is princiрally garaged, no bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable аt the time of the accident with respect to any person or organizatiоn legally responsible for the use of such automobile ....
Smith also carried automobile liability insurance with bodily injury coverage in the amounts of $10,000.00 per person and $20,000.00 per accident as required by the Texas Safety Responsibility Law, Art. 6701h, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.St. Sеveral persons, however, were injured and killed in the accident caused by Smith. Whеn the $20,000.00 available per accident was divided among all those who were entitled to *690 judgment against Smith, petitioners (each of whom was otherwise entitled to recover at least $10,000.00 from Smith) each received less than $5,000.00.
The question is whether, under these facts, Smith was driving an “uninsured automobile” so that petitioners’ own uninsured motorist coverages would be applicable. The trial court answered this question in the negative and rendered summary judgment for respondents; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.
Petitioners urge that the summary judgment be reversed and their right of recovery be recognized on the authority of Porter v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
Unlike Arizona, V.A.T.S. Insurance Code, Art. 5.06-1(2), sрecifically authorizes the State Board of Insurance to promulgate the policy forms for uninsured motorist coverage. Of course, any provision aрproved by the Board of Insurance that conflicts with the uninsured motorist statute will be held ineffective. See Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Tucker,
We realize that this result creates the anomalоus situation that these petitioners, who each had separate poliсies with uninsured motorist coverage, would have been financially better off had Smith hаd no insurance at all since each petitioner then could have recovered up to the $10,000.00 per person limit of his own uninsured motorist coverage. Hоwever, this is a matter for the consideration of the State Board of Insurancе, or the Legislature. We are bound to interpret the statutes and Board-approved policy provisions as written.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Notes
. Mr. and Mrs. Kemp’s policy was issued by Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York; Garrett Bell’s by Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Companies; and Clyde Bell’s by State Farm Insurance Company. All these parties and their respective insurers were parties to this cause in the trial court.