striking down an “other insurance” clause that prevented insured from seeking UIM benefits when other insurance was available
How later courts described this case
- striking down an “other insurance” clause that prevented insured from seeking UIM benefits when other insurance was available
- rejecting similar “two premium” argument for failure of proof
- "the Board may not act contrary to but only consistent with, and in furtherance of, the express statutory purposes."
- "other insurance" clauses may not be used to limit uninsured-motorist liability in contravention of article 5.06-1
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALKER, Justice
(dissenting).
Unlike the statutes of other jurisdictions, Art. 5.06-1, V.A.T.S. Insurance Code, provides for uninsured motorist coverage in stated limits “under provisions prescribed by the Board.” In view of this stipulation, it is my opinion that the “other insurance” provisions of the policy, which are entirely reasonable and consistent with the purpose of the statute, are valid and effective. I would hold that respondents are entitled to no recovery against petitioner under the facts of this case.
GREENHILL, REAVELY and McGEE, JJ., join in this dissent.