the Burlington Norther and Santa Fe Railway Company F/K/A the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, 394 S.W.3d 228

This appeal follows a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of National Union on defense and indemnity claims related to a 1995 BNSF railway-crossing collision.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the indemnity holding and remanded for reconsideration with extrinsic evidence.
SSI Mobley contracted to perform vegetation control for BNSF, and SSI Mobley obtained a $1M/$3M CGL policy from National Union naming BNSF as an additional insured for work within 50 feet of a rail line.
Lara and Rosales lawsuits alleged SSI Mobley’s chemical weed control caused overgrowth at the crossing, contributing to the collision; a settlement occurred in one case and a jury verdict in the other.
The court applied the eight-corners rule, rejected extrinsic evidence for the defense duty, and analyzed the additional-insured endorsement and the products-completed operations hazard exclusion.
The court held BNSF qualified as an additional insured and, under the exclusion with the exception for not-yet-completed work, National Union owed a duty to defend; it remanded for proceedings on indemnity issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is BNSF an additional insured under the policy?	BNSF contends coverage extends to its status as additional insured.	National Union argues BNSF may be excluded by policy terms.	Yes; BNSF qualifies as an additional insured.
Does the products-completed operations hazard exclusion bar the defense duty?	Exclusion does not defeat the duty to defend because allegations potentially cover SSI Mobley’s work.	Exclusion precludes coverage for injuries arising from SSI Mobley’s completed work away from its premises.	Exclusion does not defeat defense; exceptions to exclusion may apply, preserving defense duty.
Is there a duty to indemnify based on underlying facts?	Evidence shows BNSF as additional insured and SSI Mobley’s work not fully completed, supporting indemnity.	Extrinsic evidence should not alter indemnity analysis under prior ruling.	Genuine issues of material fact exist; indemnity summary judgment reversed and remanded.

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 334 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam reversal on indemnity duty after eight-corners review)
Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2008) (insurer must determine duty to defend from policy and pleadings; fault-based arguments rejected)
Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (extrinsic evidence not allowed when analyzing eight-corners rule)
King v. Dallas Fire Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2002) (duty to defend determined by pleadings and policy language (eight corners))
GuideOne Elite Ins. Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. 2006) (interpretation of policy provisions; eight-corners emphasis)
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, Inc., 268 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. 2008) (no extrinsic-evidence exception to eight-corners standard)
KLN Steel Prod. Co., Ltd. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 278 S.W.3d 429 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2008) (duty to defend; eight-corners application)
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. 1997) (duty to defend; resolve doubts in insured's favor)
Archon Investments, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 174 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (contract interpretation; ambiguities resolved in insurer's favor)