Elwyn L. Cady v. Hartford Accident and

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment dismissing his second amended petition wherein he sought actual and punitive damages
in the amount of $20,000. We shall summarize the allegations of the petition except in those instances where quotation of
the allegations is believed appropriate, and we shall insert in brackets certain answers to interrogatories made by plaintiff
and placed in the transcript by agreement of the parties. On September 13, 1956 plaintiff's automobile was involved in a collision in Kansas City, Missouri, with an automobile "operated
by one Wesselman" (presumably insured by defendant) by reason of Wesselman's negligence, and plaintiff's automobile was damaged
"in the sum of $1,000." Thereafter, plaintiff entered into "a valid contract" [with Kincaid-Webber Motor Company] for "full
repair of all damage proximately caused by the collision," but in "wanton, reckless and heedless disregard for the rights
of plaintiff, and for his safety of life and limb, defendant proceeded to interfere with the above-mentioned contract of repair
by directing its employee [Timothy D. O'Leary] to make contact with the party obligated to make repair under the said contract
and influence said party or parties to perform less than a full and complete repair of said automobile." ["The principal defect
in repair involved the right front end in which less than a first-class repair was made, involving second-rate materials and
insufficient testing of the structure thereof; a proper repair of that particular portion of the auto would embrace structurally
sound parts and appropriate testing thereof."]. In this manner defendant "procured and prevailed upon the party or parties
performing repair under the said contract to accomplish less than a complete and safe repair of said automobile." ["Mr. O'Leary
secured an estimate of repair from Kincaid-Webber, total $359.23. He then 'had the Auto Damage Appraisers go out on this case,
and they got an agreed price with the Kincaid-Webber Motor Company in the amount of $297.40 for repairs"]. This was done "in
a planned and deliberate effort with that legal malice of a wrongful action intentionally done to profit by a reduction of
repair costs for damage sustained in the collision set out above for which defendant was likely to be responsible in law."
As a proximate result of "such inadequate repair of such automobile caused by defendant" plaintiff "was placed in a position
of danger, fear, and apprehension for his safety, in that suddenly and without warning, while plaintiff was driving said automobile
on a public street in the City of Austin, Texas, the right front repaired side of the vehicle collapsed." Plaintiff sought
"$10,000 compensatory damages and $10,000 punitive damages, and costs."