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.

The court also determined the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that the damage to the insured's car was the result of vandalism. There was evidence to support the following points: the owner parked the car in a small restaurant parking lot and left the transmission in park; a large SUV was parallel parked approximately two feet in front of the car and another car was parallel parked immediately in front of the SUV; after exiting the restaurant, the owner observed that his car was moved 15 feet from where he initially parked it and the transmission was still in park; the car's front end was damaged and there was a black mark above the front bumper; and the insurer's appraiser told him that the appraiser did not feel that the damage was “accidental.”

Furthermore, the appeals court said that the insurer did not detrimentally rely on the owner's alleged misrepresentations regarding the damage to the vehicle, and thus was not excused from performing under the policy because of the owner's conduct. The insurer had alleged that the owner breached his duty to cooperate by concealing or otherwise making false representations in reporting his claim by not stating that the damage was the result of a collision and by not timely identifying witnesses.