Weingarten Realty Management Co. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
343 S.W.3d 859
Tex. App.2011Background
- Johnson v. Norstan involved an assault at Fashion Cents; Johnson alleged Weingarten Realty Management owned the premises, though actual lessor was Weingarten Investors.
- Norstan secured Liberty Mutual policy with an endorsement naming all lessors of the premises as additional insureds, making Weingarten Investors an insured; Weingarten Management had a separate Scottsdale policy.
- Johnson named Weingarten Management as a defendant; the trial court later allowed extrinsic evidence to determine insurer coverage, over eight-corners concerns.
- Weingarten Management demanded defense from Liberty Mutual as an additional insured; Liberty Mutual refused; underlying jury found no liability by Weingarten Management.
- Case proceeded with cross-motions for summary judgment; trial court granted Liberty Mutual summary judgment and denied Weingarten/Scottsdale relief; appellate court affirmed.
- Dissent argued extrinsic evidence should be considered under a narrow exception to the eight-corners rule, but the majority held no applicable exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic evidence may be considered under an eight-corners exception | Weingarten argues eight-corners allows extrinsic proof on coverage; misnomer should not destroy duty to defend. | Liberty MUT argues eight-corners controls; Weingarten is not an insured; extrinsic evidence would contradict pleadings. | Overruled in favor of Liberty Mutual; narrow exception not applicable. |
| Whether the term ‘lessor’ includes any party contractually named as additional insured | Weingarten contends lease naming it as additional insured makes it a lessor under policy. | ‘Lessor’ is unambiguous and does not extend to unidentified third parties. | Overruled; term not broader than actual insureds. |
| Whether Liberty Mutual is estopped from denying Weingarten Management as a lessor | Certificate/communications implied one Liberty entity; estoppel should apply to all Liberty entities. | No authority imputing admission to Liberty Mutual from other Liberty entities. | Overruled; no judicial admission imputable to Liberty Mutual. |
Key Cases Cited
- GuideOne Elite Ins. Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. 2006) (discusses eight-corners but exclusive circumstances for narrow exception)
- Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (limits eight-corners exception to narrow circumstances)
- Nokia, Inc. v. Globalitech, 268 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. 2008) (recognizes narrow exception framework for eight-corners)
- AccuFleet, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 322 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (illustrates eight-corners application to additional insureds; not controlling)