Weatherford attorneys and those in Springtown, Willow Park, Aledo, Hudson Oaks, Brock, and other places in Parker County need to have an understanding of how to interpret an auto insurance policy.
Most auto insurance policies will have wording to the effect that there is coverage provided by the policy for “any person” using the covered auto.
An individual covered under this clause (that is, a non-family member using the covered auto) is referred to in Texas case law as an omnibus insured, covered person or an insured by definition. These types of clauses are sometimes referred to as omnibus clauses. Texas cases using it this way include cases from the Texas Supreme Court as far back as 1979. Various other Courts of Appeal have said the same in 1972, 1973, and 1994. A Dallas Court of Appeals opinion issued in 1962 said, “A named insured is the one who purchases the policy, presumably has it in his possession and is deemed to know the contents of the contract he made. On the other hand an ‘omnibus insured‘ under a comprehensive policy stand in the position of a third party beneficiary of a contract to which he is not a party, but is a stranger.” The style of the Dallas case is, Standard Acc. Ins. Co. V Employers Cas. Co. Here is some background for reference:
This suit was brought to determine which of two insurance companies afforded primary coverage for a defendant in a personal injury suit.
On October 23, 1959 James R. Bailey, an employee of Johnson Foundation Drilling Company, was injured within the course of his employment.
Cade Carter and George Miller doing business as Carter & Miller Steel Erectors, were owners of a motor crane which they leased to the Johnson Company together with an operator for the crane, one Matt Venable, an employee of Carter & Miller. It was the alleged negligence of Venable in maneuvering the crane and its boom, with bucket attached, which caused the accident. Carter & Miller were the named insureds in a liability policy issued by Employers Casualty Company.
Dallas Concrete Company owned a ready-mix concrete truck, with revolving drum, which transported concrete to the construction site. On the occasion in question a chute had been lowered from the rear of the truck, and concrete had been caused to flow down the chute to a large bucket attached to the boom on the motor crane operated by Venable, employee of Carter & Miller. The bucket of concrete was being carried by the crane and boom to the casing into which the concrete was to be poured. Bailey was riding on the bucket when the bucket struck the casing and Bailey was caused to fall to the ground.
Dallas Concrete Company, owner of the ready-mix concrete truck, had comprehensive insurance on its truck evidenced by a policy with Standard Accident Insurance Company, This policy contained provisions to the effect that use of the truck included loading and unloading thereof.
On May 3, 1961 Bailey filed suit against Carter & Miller for damages for his injury allegedly caused by the negligent operation of Carter & Miller’s crane by Venable, their employee.
On these facts the Dallas Appeals Court had no problem finding there was coverage and ruled that the operator fit into the definition of “any person.” It is not always so clear cut. When it is disputed, an experienced Insurance Law Attorney needs to be consulted to insure that the insurance company is not doing a policy holder wrong.
Updated: