Opinion
No. 01-01-01018-CV.
Opinion issued January 29, 2004.
On Appeal from the 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1999-46273.
Anita F. Kawaja, Sylvia Davidow; Fleming Associates, L.L.P. — Houston for Appellant.
Barry A. McClenahan, Cathleen M. Stryker, Ruth G. Malinas; Ball Weed, P.C. — San Antonio for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices NUCHIA, ALCALA, and HANKS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Albert Hassler, individually and as representative of all persons similarly situated, brings this appeal to challenge a summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee, United Services Automobile Association and USAA Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, USAA), as well as the denial of appellant's own motion for summary judgment. In four issues, Hassler contends that the trial court erred by construing the Texas Standard Personal Auto Policy as excluding coverage for diminished value when an insured policyholder's vehicle has been damaged, but adequately repaired. We affirm. The dispositive issue in this case is whether the standard personal auto policy provides coverage for diminished value when an insured policyholder's vehicle has been damaged, but adequately repaired. In American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, No. 02-0295, 47 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 40, 42, 45 (Tex. Oct. 17, 2003), the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the Texas Standard Personal Auto Policy affords no coverage to compensate an insured policyholder for diminished value of an adequately repaired vehicle. As in the Schaefer case, it is undisputed that the repairs in this case were not "faulty, incomplete, or inadequate." See id. at 45. The record reflects that the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on that issue, and that both sides asserted that there were no issues of disputed fact and that judgment was proper as a matter of law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex. 2001) ("When both sides move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion but denies the other, the reviewing court should review both sides' summary judgment evidence, determine all questions presented, and render the judgment that the trial court should have rendered."). Because there are no issues of disputed fact and the supreme court has resolved the dispositive issue, we hold that the trial court properly construed Hassler's standard auto policy and did not err by (1) rendering summary judgment in favor of USAA and (2) denying Hassler's motion for summary judgment. We overrule Hassler's four issues.
Hassler initially filed his action in the trial court as a class action. After Hassler moved for partial summary judgment on coverage, USAA filed its cross-motion for summary judgment on coverage. The trial court rendered a final judgment in favor of USAA.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.