Opinion
No. 05-04-01431-CV
Opinion Filed May 5, 2005.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 03-02511-C.
Affirm.
Before Justices WRIGHT, MOSELEY, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael and Barbara Chappell appeal the summary judgment granted in favor of Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. After Michael was injured in an accident with an uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) motorist, he sought to "stack" the UM/UIM coverage from two policies for the injuries he sustained in a single accident. One of the policies was issued in his name; the second policy was issued in his wife, Barbara's, name. In its motion for summary judgment, Hartford argued Michael could not "stack" the two UM/UIM coverages because coverage under Barbara's policy is precluded by the "owned-but unscheduled family vehicle" exclusion. The trial court agreed with Hartford and granted a take-nothing summary judgment in its favor. In a single issue, appellants argue that the owned-but-unscheduled family vehicle exclusion in Barbara's policy violates article 5.06-1 of the Texas Insurance Code. We overrule appellants' sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Barbara's policy states that it does not provide UM/UIM coverage for any person "[f]or bodily injury sustained while occupying, or when struck by, any motor vehicle or trailer of any type owned by you or any family member which is not insured for this coverage under this policy." Appellants do not dispute that Michael was injured while occupying a motor vehicle owned by a family member that was not insured under Barbara's policy and thus, her policy expressly precludes Michael's recovery under her policy. Rather, relying on Upshaw v. Trinity Companies, 842 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. 1992), Stracener v. United Serv. Auto Ass'n, 777 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. 1989), Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Tucker, 512 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. 1974), and American Liberty Insurance v. Ranzau, 481 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1972), appellants argue the case law holding owned-but-unscheduled vehicle exclusions valid and not in violation of article 5.06-1 is incorrect. We disagree.
In Equitable General Insurance Co. v. Williams, 620 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), this Court, relying on Holyfield v. Members Mutual Insurance Co., 566 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas), writ ref'd n.r.e., 572 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1978), considered the validity of an owned-but-unscheduled vehicle exclusion and determined that such exclusions do not violate article 5.06-1. Equitable, 620 S.W.2d 611. Several courts of appeals have made the same or similar determinations. See, e.g., Layton v. MidCentury Ins. Co., 18 S.W.3d 308, 309 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (medical payment coverage); Frazer v. Wallis, 979 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (owned-but-unscheduled vehicle); Reyes v. Tex. All Risk Gen. Agency, 855 S.W.2d 191, 192 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no pet.) (owned-but-unscheduled vehicle); Conlin v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 828 S.W.2d 332, 336-37 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992, writ denied) (owned-but-unscheduled vehicle). In Conlin, the Austin Court of Appeals considered the effect of Stracener, Westchester, and Ranzau and determined that all three cases were distinguishable because none of those cases involved owned-but-unscheduled vehicle exclusions. Conlin, 828 S.W.2d at 336. We agree, and likewise conclude that Upshaw, the other case relied on by appellants, is not controlling because it does not involve an exclusion like the one at issue in this case. Because none of the cases relied on by appellants involve owned-but-unscheduled vehicle exclusions, we decline to revisit our holding in Equitable that owned-but-unscheduled vehicle exclusions do not violate article 5.06-1 of the Texas Insurance Code. We overrule appellants' sole issue.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.