See, e.g., Hanover Ins. Co. v. Hagler, 532 S.W.2d 136, 137 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas, 1975, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Texas law clearly states that substantial compliance with policy provisions requiring proof of loss is all that the insurer may require. Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters v. Hasting, 449 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso, 1969, no writ); Austin Bldg. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 403 S.W.2d 499, 506 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas, 1966, writ ref'd n. r. e.). See Anchor Casualty Co. v. Bowers, 385 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston, 1964), rev'd on other grounds, 393 S.W.2d 168 (Tex. 1965).
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that testimony satisfies the condition of a sworn statement of the loss KLZ incurred. See also Tex. Farm Bureau Underwriters v. Hasting, 449 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1969, no writ) (requirement of sworn signature can be waived if not pointed out with opportunity to cure). The summary judgment record indicates KLZ produced its own documents and those belonging to its predecessor company.
We hold that the undisputed facts conclusively establish that the appellant has waived the policy endorsement requirement by the insured. This point is overruled. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Carnes, 416 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1967, n.r.e.); Texas Farm Bureau Underwriters v. Hasting, 449 S.W.2d 583 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1969, n.w.h.); Graham v. San Antonio Machine and Supply Corp., 418 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1967, wr. ref. n.r.e.); Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Clark, 427 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1968). Appellant's third and fourth points are directed toward appellees' claim for goods delivered in the amount of $66.65. Appellant complains that there is a variance between the plaintiff's name and the proof.