450 S.W.3d 919
Tex. App.2014Background
- Graham, insured under a personal liability policy, shot and killed Chambers on Graham’s ranch in Smith County, Texas.
- Chambers’ family sued Graham for wrongful death; Graham incurred defense costs and sought reimbursement from Underwriters.
- Underwriters denied a duty to defend based on the eight corners rule, arguing the petition showed non-covered intentional conduct and exclusion for intentional acts.
- Graham and Underwriters cross-moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied Underwriters’ motion and granted Graham’s, awarding damages.
- Eight corners rule governs whether an insurer must defend; the court must look to the petition and policy for potential coverage, not extrinsic evidence; the appellate court reverses, holding no duty to defend.
- The court concludes the incident was not an accident, was intentional, and is excluded from coverage; the judgment is reversed and take-nothing entered for Underwriters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the eight corners rule precludes defense duty here. | Graham argues petition alleges negligence, creating potential coverage. | Underwriters contends petition shows only intentional conduct and thus no duty to defend. | Eight corners rule applied; no duty to defend. |
| Whether the petition alleges an accident or a covered occurrence. | Chambers petition includes negligence and gross negligence. | Incident described as intentional, not an accident; exclusion applies. | Incident was intentional; no coverage. |
| Whether extrinsic evidence can create a duty to defend outside pleadings. | Pine Oak exception allows extrinsic evidence for coverage issues. | Texas eight corners rule bars extrinsic evidence tying coverage to merits. | No exception recognized; eight corners controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (established eight corners framework and cautioned against merging coverage with merits)
- Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsb., 939 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. 1997) (duty to defend based on pleadings; limits of eight corners rule)
- Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. 1997) (definition of accident; consequences of intentional acts)
- GuideOne Elite Ins. Co. v. Fielder Rd. Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. 2006) (emphasized focus on pleadings for duty to defend; ambiguity rule)
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. Legacy of Life, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2012) (benefit to insured; look to pleadings for potential coverage)
- Farmers Texas County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. 1997) (negligence claims insufficient where damages originate from intentional act)