Gilbane Building Co. v. Admiral Insurance
664 F.3d 589
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Parr, a third-party plaintiff, sued Gilbane and Baker for injuries on a construction site.
- Gilbane sought defense and indemnity as an additional insured under Empire’s Admiral CGL policy.
- Empire’s Trade Contractor Agreement (TCA) required Empire to secure insurance for Gilbane and to indemnify Gilbane for Empire’s acts or omissions.
- Admiral denied coverage; district court later held Admiral had a duty to defend and to indemnify, then reversed on appeal for the duty to defend.
- Eight-corners rule governs the duty to defend; indemnity depends on proven facts at trial; the district court’s factual findings regarding liability informed indemnity.
- Court reversed the duty-to-defend ruling and affirmed the duty to indemnify, remanding for proceedings consistent with these conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gilbane is an additional insured. | Gilbane qualifies under the insured contract. | TCA indemnity may be unenforceable, so no insured contract. | Gilbane is an additional insured. |
| Whether the pleadings trigger the duty to defend. | Eight-corners should allow potential coverage. | Pleadings fail to implicate Empire or Parr's acts. | No duty to defend under pleadings. |
| Whether the policy requires proximate causation by Empire to trigger coverage. | Cause-by relationships suffice. | Only proximate causation qualifies. | Proximate causation required; triggers depend on pleadings. |
| Whether to create an exception to the eight-corners rule. | An exception could capture coverage tied to merits. | Texas law forecloses exceptions. | No exception to eight-corners; district court erred. |
| Whether Admiral has a duty to indemnify. | District court correctly found indemnity due. | Indemnity depends on insured status; if no insured contract, no indemnity. | Admiral owes indemnity due to additional insured status. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swift Energy Co. v. Mid-Continent, 206 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000) (insured contract interpreted broadly to trigger coverage despite unenforceable indemnity)
- Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great American Lloyds, 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (no duty to defend for unasserted or non-pleaded claims; eight-corners rule maintained)
- D.R. Horton-Tex., Ltd. v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co., 300 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. 2009) (distinguishes duty to defend and indemnify; eight-corners rule applies to defend)
- Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. 1997) (eight-corners framework clarified for defense obligations)
- Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great American Lloyds Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (reiterates scope and limitations of eight-corners rule)