We think our view above expressed is not in conflict with the factual situation detailed in Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Rockey, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 490; Hood v. Tex. Ind. Ins. Co., 146 Tex. 522, 209 S.W.2d 345; Bailey v. Amer. Gen. Ins. Co., 154 Tex. 430, 279 S.W.2d 315; Gen. Acc. Fire and Life Assur. Corp. v. Murphy, Tex.Civ.App., 339 S.W.2d 392, Pt. 3, (n. r. e.); Coleman v. Hartford Acc. and Ind. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W.2d 236, Pt. 4; Denbow v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 143 Tex. 455, 186 S.W.2d 236; Tex. Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Polk, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W.2d 582, (n. r. e.); Consolidated Underwriters v. Langley, 141 Tex. 78, 170 S.W.2d 463; Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Gallardo, Tex.Civ.App., 359 S.W.2d 933, (n. r. e.). Appellant further complains about special issues 14, 15 and 16 of the Court's main charge inquiring whether services of Dr. Bone were reasonably required by appellee and whether appellant refused to furnish those services, and whether $75.00 is a reasonable charge for the services.