PJC Business

PJC 101.58

C ONTRACTS

Multiple coverage provisions. If the loss is potentially covered by more than one policy provision, the question should be modified to include each disputed provision. Similarly, when more than one type of covered damage is alleged, the question may be modified to allow separate answers for the amount of each type of damage. See PJC 115.3. Source of questions. The question is based on PJC 115.3, which submits contract damages. See also Crisp v. Security National Insurance Co. , 369 S.W.2d 326, 327–28 (Tex. 1963); New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Coffman , 540 S.W.2d 445, 453 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Commercial Insurance Co. of New ark, N.J. v. Colvert , 425 S.W.2d 34, 36–37 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1968, no writ). When there is no dispute that the insurer’s failure to pay would breach the contract if a certain loss or event occurred: • The charge may ask about a disputed fact that determines coverage under specific policy language. See, e.g., Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Walker , 260 S.W.2d 600, 602 (Tex. 1953) (whether lightning struck tree); Cox v. National Life & Accident Insurance Co. , 420 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (whether insured was not in sound health). • The charge may ask about a fact that determines coverage under a statu tory provision. See, e.g., Guevara v. Guevara , No. 04-01-00326-CV, 2002 WL 562179, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 17, 2002, pet. denied) (not designated for publication) (whether beneficiary murdered insured, which under statute would forfeit benefits). • The charge may ask whether an admitted event satisfies specific policy language. See, e.g., Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Boyd , 177 S.W.3d 919, 920 (Tex. 2005) (whether accident involved “uninsured motor vehicle”). The question is adapted from jury questions based on specific policy language men tioned in the following cases: National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Hud son Energy Co. , 811 S.W.2d 552, 554–55 & n.3 (Tex. 1991); Meyer , 502 S.W.2d at 677–79; Employers Mutual Casualty Co. of Des Moines, Iowa v. Nelson , 361 S.W.2d 704, 706–07 (Tex. 1962); and Telepak v. United Services Automobile Ass’n , 887 S.W.2d 506, 507 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, writ denied). Broad-form submission. PJC 101.58 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine.

126