In USAA County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 2007 WL 2332674 (Tex.App.-Houston), the owner of an automobile brought an action against his insurance company for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the insurance code after the company denied his claim for vandalism damage to his automobile. The insurer had denied coverage on the grounds that the damage was not covered by his policy, which did not provide for collision coverage. The lower court entered judgment for the automobile owner, and the insurance company appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

The court held that testimony and evidence did not establish as a matter of law that the damage to the car resulted from (non-covered) collision rather than from vandalism, which was covered under the policy. In fact, the policy specifically provided that loss caused by malicious mischief or vandalism was not considered a collision loss.