Home Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Young

6 Citing cases

  1. Rodman Supply Co. v. Parker

    363 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962)   Cited 6 times

    If the inquiry to the jury as to appellee's being entitled to possession of the casing has the vice of being a question of law or if Special Issue No. 1 as submitted presents a mixed question of fact and law, in either of which events it would be subject to objection (41B, Tex.Jur. 500, Trial--Civil Cases, p 404); (3 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice 1051, Jury Trial: Charge, p 12.03), we feel that the definition of the word 'possession', while perhaps somewhat unwieldy, cures any objection and renders the issue one of fact for the jury. Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Young, 97 S.W.2d 360, Syl. 10 (Tex.Civ.App., err. dism.). Nor do we consider Special Issue No. 1 as being duplicitous.

  2. Union Assur. Soc. v. Tolivar

    141 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1944)   Cited 4 times

    An insurance company which issues policies of insurance and accepts premiums thereon and retains such premiums with knowledge of existing facts, which if insisted on, would invalidate the policies, waives conditions thereof inconsistent with the facts so known and is estopped from thereafter asserting such conditions in avoidance of liability. Southern Underwriters v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 435; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Houston Oil Transport Co., 5 Cir., 49 F.2d 121; Home Insurance Co. of N Y v. Young, Tex. Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d 360; American Central Ins. Co. v. Robinson, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W. 277. We are in accord with the learned trial court's holding that the judgment should go for the insured.

  3. Oates v. Continental Ins. Co.

    137 W. Va. 501 (W. Va. 1952)   Cited 20 times

    " Whether this is a correct principle of law, we need not decide in this case. However, it seems to be supported by the clear weight of American authority. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Redding, 47 Fla. 228, 37 So. 62, 67 L.R.A. 518, 110 Am. St. Rep. 118; Home Insurance Co. of New York v. Young (Tex.Civ.App.), 97 S.W.2d 360; AmericanInsurance Co. v. Maddox (Tex.Civ.App.), 60 S.W.2d 1074; 5 Couch on Insurance, Section 1063; 5 Appleman Insurance Law and Principles, Section 3061. If this action were on the Northwestern policy, and Northwestern National Insurance Company at the time it issued its policy knew of the existence of the original policy issued by Continental Insurance Company, a fact not established by this record, the renewal of the Continental policy on November 12, 1949, would not constitute the procurement of "other insurance" within the prohibitory provision of the Northwestern policy. It seems important to note that at the time plaintiff accepted the renewal policy of Continental Insurance Company, she had accepted and held the Northwestern policy. It was her duty at that time to disclose to the agent of Continental the existence of the other policy. We are, therefore, of opinion that plaintiff both before and during the pendency and trial of the consolidated cases has ratified the policy o

  4. Republic Ins. Co. v. Bolton

    564 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)   Cited 3 times
    Recognizing that "[t]he vehicle's susceptibility to state inspection and licensing, together with its present use as a racing vehicle, were simply evidentiary considerations bearing on the vehicle's design."

    Republic argues that this issue erroneously submits a question of law, and that accordingly, the jury's answer thereto must be disregarded. We disagree. Although we recognize that issues which require a jury to pass on the legal effect of a written instrument, such as an insurance policy, are generally improper, Stuckey v. Union Mortgage Investment Company, Inc., 383 S.W.2d 429, 439 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1964, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Alamo Casualty Co. v. Trafton, 231 S.W.2d 474, 478 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1950, writ dism'd), this impropriety may be cured by an adequate explanatory instruction or definition. Rodman Supply Co. v. Parker, 363 S.W.2d 838, 842 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1962, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Home Insurance Company of New York v. Young, 97 S.W.2d 360, 367 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1936, writ dism'd). In the present case, the term "motor vehicle" was defined in precisely the same language used in the policy, and the jury was thus restricted to considering the facts of the case as they related to that particular definition. Under the submitted definition, the question of whether a vehicle is "operated or designed for operation upon a public road" must be determined by the facts of the case with respect to the character of the particular vehicle involved, and if the evidence permits opposing inferences to be drawn, a jury issue is presented.

  5. Mims v. Houston Fires&sCas. Ins. Co.

    362 S.W.2d 880 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962)   Cited 1 times

    1933--Writ Dismissed); Trice v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 81 S.W.2d 1055 ([Tex.] Civ.Apps.1935-No Writ History); Home Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Young, 97 S.W.2d 360 ([Tex.] Civ.App.1936-Writ Dismissed); Newriter v. Life & C. Ins. Co., 229 Ala. 359, 157 So. 73 (1934) Western & S. L. Ins. Co. v. Oppenheimer, 31 Ky.L.Rep. 1049, 104 S.W. 721 (1907); McGuire v. Home L. Ins. Co., 94 Pa.Super. 457 (1928) National Life & Acci. Ins. Co. v. House, 104 Ind.App. 403, 9 N.E.2d 133 (1937) Lanigan v. Prudential Ins. Co., 63 Hun. 408, 18 N.Y.S. 287 (1892); Clay v. Liberty Industrial L. Ins. Co., 157 So. 838 (La.App.1934); Cobbs v. Unity Industrial L. Ins. Co., 158 So. 263 (La.App.1935); Wills v. Liberty Industrial L. Ins. Co., 159 So. 141 (La.App.1935); Atlas v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. [Sup.], 181 N.Y.S. 363 (1920); Melick v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 84 N.J.L. 437, 87 A. 75 (1913-Affirmed in 85 N.J.L. 727, 91 A. 1070); Monahan v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 103 Md. 145, 63 A. 211, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 759 (1906); Emlaw v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 108 Mich. 554, 66 N.W. 469 (1896); National Life & Acci. Ins

  6. St. F Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Owens

    308 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958)   Cited 1 times

    Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. Proffitt, 150 Tex. 207, 239 S.W.2d 379. Provisions inserted in a contract by the insurer which tend to defeat, diminish or forfeit the insurance will be construed strictly against the insurer. Home Ins. Co., of New York v. Young, Tex.Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d 360. Forfeitures are not favored in law. Home Ins. Co. v. Puckett, Tex.Com.App., 27 S.W.2d 111.