Uninsured Coverage

Richardson insurance attorneys need to be aware of this Eastland Court of Appeals case. The style of the case is Anderson v. Texas Farm Bureau. Here is some of the relevant information.
Anderson appeals the trial court’s judgment that granted Texas Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment. Texas Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment because the pickup that injured Anderson was not a scheduled vehicle on Anderson’s policy and was owned by Anderson’s adult son, Dean, who was staying in Anderson’s home at the time of the accident. Anderson claimed he was covered under his UM coverage because a thief took the pickup, which Anderson did not own, and, as the thief fled, the thief drove the pickup into Anderson and injured Anderson.
Anderson lived at 610 Texas Street in Throckmorton, Texas. On January 23,
2010, Cameron Morris and another man were in a vehicle and drove to Anderson’s home. The man exited the vehicle and got into a pickup parked in front of Anderson’s home. The man started to drive the pickup off Anderson’s property. When Anderson tried to stop the man, the man drove the pickup into Anderson and injured Anderson.
In his deposition, Dean testified that the man who drove the pickup was named Mark and that Mark worked for Dean’s employer, Michael E. McGuffin. Anderson testified that he had met Mark and that Mark was the person who drove the pickup into him. Dean testified that he did not give Mark authorization to drive the pickup.
Dean testified that he and McGuffin co-owned the pickup and that McGuffin had insurance on the pickup, but no evidence was adduced that Mark had authorization from McGuffin to drive the pickup. Anderson did not own the pickup. The certificate of title to the pickup was not part of the summary judgment evidence. In addition, the only insurance policy adduced as summary judgment evidence was Anderson’s policy.
Dean further testified that he had possession of the pickup and that McGuffin had not had possession or use of the pickup in the last six months. Dean lived with Anderson at 610 Texas Street in Throckmorton, which is where he kept the pickup. Dean said that, at the time of the accident, he lived at his father’s home and that the pickup was kept there.
Anderson contends that Texas Farm Bureau’s UM exclusion regarding a family member’s vehicle does not apply because the pickup was stolen and the thief used the pickup to injure Anderson. Texas Farm Bureau counters that Anderson is precluded from any recovery under the UM provision of his policy because the pickup, which Dean possessed or owned, was not a scheduled vehicle on Anderson’s policy.
Texas Farm Bureau argues that there are three classes of vehicles that are set out in Exclusion A.1 to the UM coverage provision of its policy: (1) unowned vehicles; (2) owned vehicles that are insured under the policy because the insured has paid a UM/UIM premium on those vehicles for UM/UIM coverage; and (3) owned vehicles that are not scheduled vehicles under the policy and on which the insured has not paid a UM/UIM premium. Texas Farm Bureau argues that the pickup involved in the accident was in the third category.
The Texas Farm Bureau policy UM/UIM provision provides that it will pay damages that a covered person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by a covered person caused by an accident. But the UM/UIM provision also provides in Exclusion A.1:
A. We do not provide Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage for any person:
1. For 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.

The key terms are you, family member, motor vehicle owned by you, and uninsured motor vehicle.
The Texas Farm Bureau policy “Definitions” section defines “you” as the “named insured shown in the Declarations” and the “spouse if a resident of the same household.” The Texas Farm Bureau policy “Definitions” section defines “family member” as follows:
Family member means a person who is a resident of your household and related to you by blood, marriage or adoption. This definition includes a ward or foster child who is a resident of your household, and also includes your spouse even when not a resident of your household during a period of separation in contemplation of divorce.
In this case, we must accept uncontroverted summary judgment evidence on ownership of the pickup as true; Dean testified that he and McGuffin were co-owners of the pickup. Therefore, under the policy, Dean is an owner of the pickup and a family member of Anderson, but McGuffin also is an owner.
Having determined that Dean is a family member and at least a partial owner of the pickup, we now look to see if the pickup is an uninsured motor vehicle. In the policy, “uninsured motor vehicle” is defined, in part, as “a land motor vehicle or trailer of any type . . . to which no liability bond or policy applies at the time of the accident.” In addition, the policy explicitly excludes from the definition of uninsured motor vehicle any vehicle that is “owned by or furnished or available for the regular use of you or any family member.” The uninsured motorist provision of the policy has been found to be valid and enforceable.
Again, taking the uncontroverted summary judgment evidence as true, Dean testified that he did not insure the pickup but that he had possession, use, and partial ownership of the pickup. Dean also said that he lived at his father’s house and kept the pickup there. Anderson testified that the pickup was not a scheduled vehicle on his policy; that policy was adduced as evidence. Dean claimed that the pickup was covered by McGuffin. But no such policy of insurance was submitted as evidence. We will assume, in taking all inferences in favor of the nonmovant, that no policy of insurance covered the pickup.
Texas Farm Bureau argues that Anderson cannot recover under his UM coverage because Anderson was injured by a family member’s vehicle that Anderson did not schedule on his own policy.
Although Anderson was injured by an employee of McGuffin, who drove the pickup without Dean’s authorization, the pickup also was owned by Dean, a family member, and was not a covered vehicle under Anderson’s policy. Moreover, even if Dean had not owned the vehicle, the uncontroverted evidence was that the vehicle was available for his regular use, which also would have precluded coverage.
Because Anderson did not list the pickup on his policy and because Dean, a family member, owned or had use of the pickup, Exclusion A.1 applies. As a result, Anderson is precluded from recovery under the UM provision of his policy.