Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Cowan
40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 583, 945 S.W.2d 819, 1997 Tex. LEXIS 45 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a standard insurance policy, purely mental anguish without any alleged physical manifestation does not constitute a 'bodily injury' defined as 'bodily harm, sickness or disease.' Furthermore, an intentional act is not an 'accident,' and therefore not a covered 'occurrence,' even if the specific resulting injury was unintended by the insured.
Facts:
- Gregory Gage worked as a photo lab clerk at an H.E.B. Photo Place.
- A roll of film containing somewhat revealing pictures of Nicole Cowan was delivered for developing.
- Gage made extra prints of four of the pictures and took them home.
- He later showed the pictures to some friends.
- Gage left the pictures with one friend with instructions to throw them away.
- This friend, however, showed the pictures to another person, who was a friend of Cowan.
- Cowan's friend then informed Cowan of Gage's actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Nicole Cowan sued Gregory Gage and H.E.B. in a Texas trial court for negligence and other claims.
- Gage notified his parents' homeowners' insurer, Trinity Lloyd’s Insurance Company, of the suit.
- Trinity initially provided a defense under a reservation of rights but later denied coverage and withdrew.
- Gage assigned his potential claims against Trinity to Cowan in exchange for a promise that Cowan would not execute a judgment against his personal assets.
- Following a nonjury trial, the trial court found Gage negligent and awarded Cowan $250,000.
- Cowan then filed a new lawsuit against Trinity in a Texas trial court as Gage's judgment creditor and assignee.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Cowan on the issue of insurance coverage.
- Trinity (appellant) appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Cowan (appellee).
- Trinity subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
First, does a claim for purely mental anguish, absent any alleged physical manifestation, qualify as a 'bodily injury' under an insurance policy defining the term as 'bodily harm, sickness or disease'? Second, is an insured's intentional tort that results in unintended injury an 'accident,' and thus a covered 'occurrence,' under the policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cornyn
No, a claim for purely mental anguish without alleged physical manifestations is not a 'bodily injury,' and no, an intentional tort with unintended results is not an 'accident.' First, the policy term 'bodily injury,' defined as 'bodily harm, sickness or disease,' unambiguously requires an injury to the physical structure of the human body and does not encompass purely emotional injuries. The court rejects the idea that a pleading for mental anguish implicitly includes a claim for physical manifestations; such symptoms must be explicitly alleged to trigger the insurer's duty to defend. Second, Gage's conduct was not an 'accident' because his acts of copying and showing the photographs were intentional. An act is not an accident simply because the resulting harm was unexpected or unintended; the focus is on the intentional nature of the underlying conduct, the consequences of which could be reasonably anticipated. That Gage did not intend for Cowan to discover his actions is irrelevant to whether the act itself was an 'accident.'
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies two fundamental terms—'bodily injury' and 'occurrence'—in Texas insurance law, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions. By ruling that 'bodily injury' requires a physical component, the court limits insurers' duty to defend against claims for purely emotional distress, thereby requiring plaintiffs' attorneys to plead physical manifestations specifically. The court's narrow definition of 'accident' reinforces the principle that insurance is not meant to cover the foreseeable consequences of intentional torts, which serves to minimize the moral hazard of insureds engaging in wrongful conduct with the expectation of coverage. This precedent provides insurers with a stronger basis to deny coverage for intentional acts, regardless of the insured's subjective intent regarding the ultimate harm.
