American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schaefer

124 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2003) · Supreme Court of Texas · October 17, 2003 · No. No. 02-0295

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that a standard personal automobile insurance policy does not require an insurer to compensate an insured for the diminished market value of a vehicle that has been fully and adequately repaired. The court concluded that the policy's limitation-of-liability and payment provisions unambiguously limited the insurer's obligation to repair or replace the vehicle or pay its actual cash value, whichever was less. The court reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment for the insurer.

Holdings

  1. A standard Texas personal automobile insurance policy providing that the insurer may pay the lesser of the vehicle's actual cash value or the amount necessary to repair or replace it does not obligate the insurer to pay diminished market value when the vehicle has been fully and adequately repaired.
  2. The policy is unambiguous because its language is not reasonably susceptible to two or more interpretations that would require payment of diminished value after adequate repair.
  3. The insurer's failure to expressly exclude diminished-value damages does not create coverage where the policy's affirmative coverage and limitation provisions do not provide for those damages.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the standard Texas personal automobile insurance policy obligated the insurer to compensate the insured for diminished market value when the vehicle had been fully and adequately repaired.
  2. Whether the policy language was ambiguous regarding the insurer's obligation to pay diminished-value damages.
  3. Whether the absence of an express diminished-value exclusion created coverage for such damages.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (20)

  • Tex. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 996 S.W.2d 873, 879 (Tex. 1999)(followed)
  • Kelley-Coppedge, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 980 S.W.2d 462, 464-65 (Tex. 1998)(followed)
  • Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995)(followed)
  • Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983)(followed)
  • Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKee, 943 S.W.2d 455, 458 (Tex. 1997)(followed)
  • Sec. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Johnson, 584 S.W.2d 703, 704 (Tex. 1979)(followed)
  • Carlton v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 32 S.W.3d 454, 464 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied)(followed)
  • Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 736-39 (Fla. 2002)(followed)
  • Hall v. Acadia Ins. Co., 801 A.2d 993, 995 (Me. 2002)(followed)
  • Wildin v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 249 Wis. 2d 477, 638 N.W.2d 87, 90 (Ct. App. 2001), review denied, 252 Wis. 2d 150, 644 N.W.2d 686 (2002)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…