PJC Business

PJC 101.57

C ONTRACTS

“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. Description of covered loss/instructions based on policy language. The description of covered loss submitted to the jury should include any coverage lan guage and any exception to an exclusion on which the insured relies. Telepak , 887 S.W.2d at 507. When instructions are given, they generally should follow the terms in the policy. International Travelers Ass’n v. Marshall , 114 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex. 1938); Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Steele , 570 S.W.2d 213, 217 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.). It may be error to submit an instruction that does not sufficiently track the policy language. See Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. McLaughlin , 380 S.W.2d 101, 105 (Tex. 1964); New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Coffman , 540 S.W.2d 445, 450 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.). But any error may be harmless if the devia tion is not material. See Coffman , 540 S.W.2d at 450–51; Truck Insurance Exchange v. Ballard , 343 S.W.2d 953, 957–59 (Tex. App.—Austin 1961, writ ref’d n.r.e.). An instruction that submits policy language but unduly emphasizes one part is erro neous. Nelson , 361 S.W.2d at 706–07 (question overemphasized “settling” in phrase “settling, shrinkage or expansion”). It is not error to omit policy language about an element that is undisputed. See National County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Wallace , 673 S.W.2d 410, 411–12 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ); U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Skatell , 596 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.). While instructions based on policy language may be helpful, they are not always required. In State Farm Lloyds v. Nicolau , 951 S.W.2d 444, 451–52 (Tex. 1997), the court held that it was not error to refuse instructions that would have tracked the policy when the policy was in evidence, the relevant language was presented to the jury and discussed at length, and there was no dispute about the meaning of the policy terms. In other circumstances, including instructions that submit the relevant policy language may assist the jury. Instruction based on judicial construction or definition. It may be necessary to deviate from the exact policy language to correctly submit an issue, for example, when the language has been judicially construed or qualified. See Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Co. v. Dettle , 707 S.W.2d 271, 272–73 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1986, no writ) (instruction added word “intentional” to policy definition of suicide, to conform to judicial decisions); Slocum v. United Pacific Insurance Co. , 615 S.W.2d 807, 810

122