holding that policy holder failed to give reasonable notice to the insurer of a claim against him as a matter of law where he waited thirty- two days to give notice because the insured did not testify and there was no evidence he was unable to give notice due to physical or mental disability
How later courts described this case
- holding that policy holder failed to give reasonable notice to the insurer of a claim against him as a matter of law where he waited thirty- two days to give notice because the insured did not testify and there was no evidence he was unable to give notice due to physical or mental disability
- holding that, as a matter of law, a thirty-two-day delay in notice was not "as soon as practicable”
- delay of 32 days in notifying insured of an automobile accident was not "as soon as practicable” as a matter of law
- "It should be kept in mind that this is a suit on an insurance policy executed to [the insured] and that it can benefit petitioners only to the degree which it affords protection to [the insured]."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Culver,
dissenting, on rehearing.
I concur with the dissent in this case and am therefore of the opinion that the motion for rehearing should be granted.
The Company received notice of this accident within two or three days after its occurrence from other sources. I think then that the finding of the jury, to the effect that the written notice given by the insured approximately thirty days thereafter, was within a reasonable time, is not wholly unsupported by the evidence.
The purpose of the provision in the policy that written notice should be given by or on behalf of the insured as soon as practicable, is obviously for the sole purpose of enabling the Company to proceed with a timely investigation and this the Company did.
In New Amsterdam Casualty Company v. Hamblen, 144 *174 Texas 306 , 190 S.W. 2d 56 , cited by the majority, the facts differed materially from others in our case. The accident occurred on February 13th. Suit was filed on August 4th. The Company had no notice either of the claim or of the suit until the receipt of a letter from the assured on March 8th of the following year, some seven months after the filing of the suit. I do not think, therefore, it is necessarily decisive of the case here.
Opinion delivered February 23, 1955.