HOUSTON – The 14th Court of Appeals issued an opinion involving Safeco Insurance and Clear Vision Windshield Repair, ruling that Safeco waived enforcement in several insurance policies.
The Appeals Court found that three of the four issues that Safeco argued on appeal didn't need to be addressed and only addressed one of the issues.
Justices Brett Busby and Ken Wise were in the majority. Chief Justice Kem Thompson Frost dissented and filed a separate opinion.
"In that issue, Safeco argues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that it had waived enforcement of the anti-assignment clauses in the insurance policies," Busby wrote in the majority opinion. "Because we conclude sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s waiver finding, we overrule Safeco’s third issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment."
Clear Vision repaired chips in windshields for Safeco's clients and submitted invoices to Safeco for the costs of repairs, but Safeco allegedly failed to pay four invoices, so Clear Vision filed a lawsuit against over allegations of breach of contract, according to the Nov. 27 majority opinion.
Clear Vision charges a flat rate to repair a chipped windshield of $150 and the company verifies the insurance information from the customer and then submits an invoice to the insurance company.
Safeco eventually paid three of the four invoices Clear Vision had submitted but refused to pay one of them. Clear Vision then filed suit against Safeco over allegations of breach of contract.
There was a bench trial in the case and Clear Vision was awarded $150 for the invoice, along with interest and $14,000 in attorney fees, according to the suit. The case was then appealed.
"Having reviewed the entire record, we hold there is legally and factually sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Safeco waived enforcement of the anti-assignment clauses in the individual appellees’ insurance policies," the majority opinion states.
The majority opinion noted that because of the waivers, Clear Vision had the standing to assert its claims against Safeco for breach of contract.
In her dissenting opinion, Frost said the evidence was "factually insufficient" to prove that Safeco had waived its right to enforce the anti-assignment clause.
"Rather than affirm the trial court’s judgment, this court should reject the waiver-by-conduct theory and address the remaining issues," Frost wrote.
Frost wrote that the record did not contain anything to suggest that Safeco had given up its rights in the anti-assignment clause in its contracts with its insureds.
"Unless the anti-assignment clause fails on public-policy grounds (an issue the majority declines to address), the court should enforce the parties’ insurance agreements as written," Frost wrote.
14th Court of Appeals case number 14-17-00103