The Texas Supreme Court docket just lately dominated that accidents suffered in a golf cart at a faculty isn’t coated in an auto legal responsibility coverage held by the college district.
In Pharr–San Juan–Alamo Impartial College District, v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self Insurance coverage Fund, the courtroom dominated on a case that includes a dispute whether or not an automobile-liability insurance coverage coverage requires the insurer to defend and indemnify the insured in opposition to claims for damages arising from an accident involving a golf cart.
The courtroom dominated the insurer had no responsibility to defend the insured as a result of a golf cart just isn’t the identical as a car “designed for journey on public roads” as said within the coverage, just isn’t coated.
The college district obtained auto legal responsibility insurance coverage from the Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self Insurance coverage Fund, which requires the fund to indemnify the district and pay as damages on account of bodily harm or property harm to which the self-insurance applies if these damages are “brought on by an accident and consequence[s] from the possession, upkeep or use of a coated auto.”
Lorena Flores, appearing on behalf of her minor daughter Alexis, sued the college district and its worker, Cristoval DeLaGarza, Jr., alleging that Alexis “was severely injured after being thrown from a golf cart.”
The swimsuit alleged that DeLaGarza “recklessly and negligently operated” the golf cart when “he instantly, and with out warning, turned the golf cart abruptly, thereby throwing Alexis Flores from the car.”
The insurance coverage fund refused to indemnify the district as a result of the coverage didn’t present protection as a result of a golf cart just isn’t designed for journey on public roads and thus just isn’t an “auto,” as outlined within the coverage.
The fund filed the swimsuit looking for a declaratory judgment that it had no responsibility to defend the district, and the district filed a counter-claim for declaratory judgment that the coverage required the fund to defend and indemnify the college district.
A trial courtroom dominated the coverage requires the fund to defend and indemnify the college district, and an appeals courtroom reversed that call.
The Supreme Court docket affirmed the ruling, noting the fund “can be entitled to a abstract judgment on each the responsibility to defend and the responsibility to indemnify.”
Nevertheless, the fund filed motions for abstract judgment on each duties within the trial courtroom and appealed the trial courtroom’s denial of these motions, however the courtroom of appeals affirmed.
“The Insurance coverage Fund requests in its transient that this Court docket reverse the courtroom of appeals’ judgment and render judgment in favor of the Insurance coverage Fund, however we can’t grant that reduction as a result of the Insurance coverage Fund didn’t file a petition for evaluate on this Court docket,” the ruling states.
The courtroom remanded the case to the trial courtroom.
Get computerized alerts for this subject.