Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great American Lloyds Insurance Co., 357 S.W.3d 166

This is an insurance coverage dispute where Vines-Herrin Custom Homes and Cerullo seek defense/indemnity from Great American Lloyds and Mid-Continent for Cerullo's home damage.
Cerullo purchased the home in May 2000; damage began appearing in 2000–2002 with water intrusion, cracking, and sagging ceilings.
The Great American policies ran 11/9/1998–11/9/2000 and the Mid-Continent policies ran 11/9/2000–9/18/2002; underlying suit for negligent construction was filed January 2003.
A 2006 arbitration awarded Cerullo damages, after which Cerullo intervened in the insurance-declaration case; the trial court initially ruled for appellees, then reopened proceedings under the Don's Building actual-injury rule.
The trial court required expert testimony and a precise date of the actual injury to trigger coverage, applying Don's Building and concluding for appellees.
The Texas Supreme Court shifted to an actual-injury trigger in Don's Building, holding that damage occurs when actual physical damage happens, not when it is discovered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cerullo's petitions allege damage occurred within policy periods to trigger defense	Cerullo's pleadings allege damage began by 2001 within Great American and by 2000–2002 within Mid-Continent.	Appellees argue pleadings do not clearly establish damage within policy periods.	Yes; pleadings sufficiently allege potential injury within policy periods, triggering defense.
Whether actual-injury trigger requires an exact date and expert testimony for indemnity	Under Don's Building, actual injury occurred during policy period; exact date/expert not required.	Don's Building requires precise dating and expert proof of when injury occurred.	No exact date or expert testimony required to trigger indemnity; injury occurred within policy period.

Don's Bldg. Supply, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 267 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. 2008) (actual-injury trigger, injury occurs when physical damage happens)
King v. Dallas Fire Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2002) (duty to defend analysis; eight-corners rule)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 334 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2011) (eight-corners approach; interpretation of pleadings)
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. 1997) (liberal interpretation of petitions under eight-corners rule)
Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (duty to defend; interpretation of coverage and allegations)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final judgments; interlocutory appeals principles)