Ending a putative class motion, america Courtroom of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined coverage language and two statutes to carry that an insurer doesn’t owe gross sales tax on high of an precise money worth fee. The quotation is Taylor v. Root Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18240 (fifth Cir. July 24, 2024).
The policyholder’s contract offered:
Restrict of legal responsibility
A. Our restrict of legal responsibility for loss would be the lesser of the:
1. Precise money worth of the stolen or broken property much less the deductible; or
2. Quantity essential to restore or exchange the property with different property of like sort and high quality much less the deductible.
. . . .
Cost of loss
We might pay for loss in cash or restore or exchange the broken or stolen property. We might, at our expense, return any stolen property to:
1. You; or
2. The handle proven on this coverage.
If we return stolen property we pays for any harm ensuing from the theft. We might maintain all or a part of the property at an agreed or appraised worth.
If we pay for loss in cash, our fee will embrace the relevant gross sales tax for the broken or stolen property. We might settle any loss with you or the proprietor or lienholder of the property.
Emphasis added.
The insurer decided that the policyholder sustained a complete loss to her hail-damaged car. The insurer paid $22,750 to the policyholder in change for her car’s title, however didn’t pay gross sales tax. The policyholder sued, alleging breach of contract and violation of Texas Insurance coverage Code Chapter 542, Immediate Cost of Claims. The policyholder asserted that she was owed 6.25% gross sales tax pursuant to Texas Tax Code §152.021 which states: “A tax is imposed on each retail sale of each motorcar bought on this state. . . . The tax price is 6 1/4 p.c of the entire consideration.”
The Courtroom rejected the allegations and held:
The plain language of the coverage requires Root to pay solely the “relevant gross sales tax,” and there’s no gross sales tax relevant right here. The Texas Tax Code imposes a 6.25 p.c tax “on each retail sale” of a motorcar, id., however a total-loss settlement “is just not thought-about a sale” underneath Texas regulation, 34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.62. Taylor identifies no different gross sales tax that would apply. Moreover, Root happy its obligation to pay Taylor the precise money worth of the car. We so maintain as a result of, as Taylor concedes and as this court docket lately held, precise money worth, which is the equal of “honest market worth[,] doesn’t embrace the taxes and charges payable to buy a substitute car” underneath Texas regulation.
Thus, the Courtroom decided that the insurer didn’t breach the contract as a result of the insurer was not required to pay the policyholder gross sales tax along with ACV. As a result of the insurer didn’t owe gross sales tax, the Courtroom held that the insurer couldn’t be chargeable for violation of Texas Insurance coverage Code Chapter 542.
Taylor is considerably restricted in its utility as a result of the Courtroom’s holding will depend on statutes governing cars, somewhat than actual property. Nevertheless, courts might be guided by this holding on different contexts.
About The Writer