USAA County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cook
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 6599, 2007 WL 2332674, 241 S.W.3d 93 (2007)
Rule of Law:
An intentional act causing damage to an insured vehicle may be considered "vandalism" and therefore covered under an "other than collision loss" policy, even if the act involves a physical impact, especially when the policy explicitly excludes "vandalism" from the definition of "collision."
Facts:
- In June 2004, Hayden P. Cook purchased a 1998 Volkswagen Jetta and an insurance policy from USAA.
- Cook's policy included "Part D — Damage to Your Auto" for "Other than Collision Loss" with a $200 deductible, which covered "malicious mischief or vandalism," but he specifically did not purchase "Collision Coverage."
- On October 8, 2004, Cook parallel parked his car approximately two feet behind a very large sports utility vehicle (SUV) in a confined parking lot in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and left the transmission in park.
- Approximately forty-five minutes later, Cook returned to find his car moved fifteen feet from its original parking spot, with the front grill and hood extensively damaged from a "direct head-on collision," and the SUV that had been in front was gone.
- Cook's car's transmission remained in park despite having been moved fifteen feet, and a black mark on his bumper indicated impact from a taller vehicle.
- Cook reported the incident to the local police but found no witnesses or working surveillance cameras to confirm what happened.
- Believing the damage was caused by "vandalism," Cook filed a claim with USAA on October 21, 2004, but USAA denied the claim, asserting it was a non-covered "collision loss."
Procedural Posture:
- Hayden P. Cook sued USAA County Mutual Insurance Company in trial court for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of Texas Insurance Code articles, and attorney's fees.
- The trial court submitted the case to a jury, which found that USAA failed to comply with the insurance policy and its duty of good faith and fair dealing, found that USAA's failure was not excused, and awarded actual damages of $1,926.56 to Cook.
- The jury also found that USAA engaged in unfair and deceptive acts but not knowingly, and awarded reasonable and necessary attorney's fees totaling $23,310 for trial and an additional $30,000 contingent upon appeals.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Cook based on the jury's verdict, including actual damages, interest, and attorney's fees.
- USAA appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does damage to an insured vehicle caused by an intentional act of ramming by another vehicle constitute "vandalism" covered under an "other than collision loss" policy, even when "collision" coverage was not purchased, where the policy explicitly states that loss caused by "vandalism" is not considered "collision"?
Opinions:
Majority - Terry Jennings, Justice
Yes, damage to an insured vehicle caused by an intentional act of ramming by another vehicle can constitute "vandalism" covered under an "other than collision loss" policy, even when "collision" coverage was not purchased, where the policy explicitly states that loss caused by "vandalism" is not considered "collision." The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the damage was due to vandalism. The court first addressed USAA's argument that Cook's admissions and the policy terms precluded coverage. While Cook acknowledged the damage resulted from a "collision," the court noted that the policy explicitly listed "malicious mischief or vandalism" as losses not considered "collision," indicating they were covered under "other than collision loss." The court found that "collision" and "vandalism" are not mutually exclusive; rather, vandalism often involves a collision, but the key distinction is whether the act was deliberate rather than negligent. USAA even conceded at oral argument that vandalism could involve a car intentionally colliding with another. The court then reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the jury's finding of vandalism. Despite no eyewitnesses, Cook presented circumstantial evidence: his car was securely parked with the transmission in park, a large SUV was directly in front, the parking lot was confined, and upon return, his car had been moved 15 feet, showing head-on damage from a taller bumper, and the SUV was gone. An appraiser also indicated the damage did not feel "accidental." The court distinguished Rich v. United Mutual Fire Insurance Company, where the evidence was too speculative, by noting that the circumstances in Cook's case—particularly the car being moved 15 feet while in park in a confined space—made an inference of intentional damage (vandalism) reasonable and rendered the inference of mere negligence less plausible. The court concluded that reasonable and fair-minded people could infer a willful or malicious act, "akin to road rage," not mere negligence. Finally, the court rejected USAA's arguments that Cook breached his duty to cooperate or that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of vandalism. USAA failed to show it was prejudiced by any alleged non-cooperation (citing McGuire v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. of New York), and it waived its right to rely on judicial admissions by not objecting to controverting testimony about vandalism during trial (citing Marshall v. Vise; Houston First Am. Sav. v. Musick). The court also found the attorney's fees award factually sufficient, noting the significant time invested by Cook's attorney in a complex case involving numerous motions, despite the relatively low actual damages.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of "other than collision" coverage, particularly when an intentional act (vandalism) involves a physical impact that could also be described as a "collision." It establishes that simply because damage involves an impact does not automatically categorize it as an uncovered "collision" if the policy explicitly defines "vandalism" as a non-collision loss. The ruling highlights the importance of policy language that separates intentional acts from accidental collisions for coverage purposes and demonstrates that circumstantial evidence, even without direct eyewitnesses, can be legally and factually sufficient to prove an intentional act of vandalism, especially when the circumstances render alternative explanations (like negligence) improbable. This decision offers important precedent for policyholders seeking coverage for damage where the cause is ambiguous but points to deliberate harm.
