X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision Whether the insurer was required to issue hired and non-owned automobile insurance with PIP and UM/UIM coverage is a question of law that may be appropriately decided by invocation of the UDJA. FACTS:Dr. Jeanne Taylor purchased multi-peril insurance for her business from State Farm in 1993. At that time, multi-peril insurance policies were promulgated by the Texas Department of Insurance. Within that policy, State Farm offered limited non-owned auto liability insurance. Taylor purchased hired auto liability insurance as an endorsement to her multi-peril policy. In 1996, TDI allowed State Farm to write its own multi-peril policy subject to TDI’s approval. At that time, State Farm issued hired and non-owned auto liability insurance as an endorsement to Taylor’s multi-peril policy. None of the hired and non-owned auto liability coverage State Farm issued included personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured /under insured motorist coverage. Taylor filed suit against State Farm, arguing that Insurance Code ��5.06-1 and 5.06-3 required State Farm to issue PIP and UM/UIM coverage. State Farm moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it without specifying the grounds. The trial court also denied Taylor’s motion for partial summary judgment. On appeal, Taylor argues that since the trial court did not specify its grounds for granting the summary judgment, addresses every issue advanced: 1. standing; 2. exhaustion of administrative remedies; 3. whether “hired and non-owned auto liability coverage” under her policy is properly classified as “automobile liability coverage” subject to mandatory PIP and UM/UIM coverage; 4. if “hired and non-owned auto liability coverage” is “automobile liability coverage,” whether TDI cancel or lessen coverage (PIP and UM/UIM) mandated by the legislature; and 5. if TDI does have the authority to cancel or lessen mandated coverage’s, whether it has exercised that authority. State Farm argues that TDI has the authority to regulate certain auto insurance by other provisions of the insurance code when TDI determines that it is appropriate and that TDI has chosen to regulate hired and non-owned auto coverage under the multi-peril subchapter of the insurance code, which does not require PIP and UM/UIM coverage, rather than the auto liability subchapter which does require PIP and UM/UIM coverage. HOLDING:Affirmed. Addressing Taylor’s arguments in order, the court first determines that she does have standing, even though she has not filed a claim under her policy. If Taylor’s reading of the statutes is correct, then State Farm already violated the statute and infringed on Taylor’s legal rights. Taylor was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because that requirement does not apply to “pure questions of law” such as hers. Discussing the third and fourth points together, the court concludes that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinguishable from auto liability insurance covered by ��5.06-1 and 5.06-3, so State Farm is not required to provide PIP and UM/UIM coverage. The court takes note of Insurance Code �5.02, which excludes from the mandatory coverage subsection any insurance against liability for damages arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of or against loss of or damage to motor vehicles that may, in the judgment of the TDI, be a type or class of insurance which is also the subject of or may be more properly regulated under the terms or provisions of other insurance rating laws. “Taking the provisions together and noting their relative placements within the subchapter dealing with automobile insurance, it is clear that article 5.02 grants TDI the discretion to except some kinds of auto insurance from [the subsection] mandatory PIP and UM/UIM coverage.” Having concluded that TDI does have authority to remove hired and non-owned auto liability policies such as Taylor’s from the regulation of auto liability coverage provisions, the court concludes TDI has indeed exercised that authority even if the agency did not expressly state that it was using its discretion. OPINION:Smith, J.; Kidd, Smith and Puryear, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.