eight-corners rule in Texas

2024EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE In applying the eight-corners rule, “[e]xtrinsic evidence or facts outside the pleadings are generally not considered.” Monroe, 640 S.W.3d at 199 (citing GuideOne, 197 S.W.3d at 308 ). -8- 04-23-00779-CV But there are some exceptions.

2022Id. at 310 (noting that the proffered extrinsic evidence contradicted an allegation regarding the defendant’s dates of employment); see also id. at 311 (rejecting an invitation by amicus to adopt a “true-facts” exception to the eight-corners rule).

2024See Nat’l Union Fire Ins., 939 S.W.2d at 141 ; see also Pine Oak, 279 S.W.3d at 654 . - 14 - 04-23-00779-CV F. Exceptions to Consider Extrinsic Evidence Although we conclude that Barnett’s claims are not within the policy’s scope, we must also consider whether the Avalos or Monroe exceptions to the eight-corners rule would allow the trial court to grant Dr. Friedman’s motion to compel Barnett’s deposition.

2019Under the eight-corners rule, “[f]acts outside the pleadings, even those easily ascertained, are ordinarily not material to the determination.” GuideOne, 197 S.W.3d at 308 (citing Fast Motor Lines, 939 S.W.2d at 141 ).

2006Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 529-31 (5th Cir.2004) (making “best Erie guess” that current Texas Supreme Court would not recognize any exception to the strict eight-corners rule); Westport Ins.

2006Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc. , 363 F.3d 523 , 529 B 31 (5th Cir. 2004) (making A best Erie guess @ that current Texas Supreme Court would not recognize any exception to the strict eight-corners rule); Westport Ins.

2023Co. v. Nokia, Inc., 268 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Tex. 2008). 5 Id. 6 Id. at 490-91 . 13 Whether an insurer owes a duty to defend “is a question of law which the appellate court reviews de novo.” 7 In determining a duty to defend, we follow the eight-corners rule, sometimes called the complaint- allegation rule. 8 “The rule directs Texas courts to determine an insurer’s duty to defend its insured based on (1) the pleadings [filed] against the insured and (2) the terms of the insurance policy.”9 Under the eight- corners rule, an insurer’s duty to defend its insured from a underlying suit is determined b

2023Co. v. Nokia, Inc., 268 S.W.3d 487, 490 (Tex. 2008). 5 Id. 6 Id. at 490-91 . 13 Whether an insurer owes a duty to defend “is a question of law which the appellate court reviews de novo.” 7 In determining a duty to defend, we follow the eight-corners rule, sometimes called the complaint- allegation rule. 8 “The rule directs Texas courts to determine an insurer’s duty to defend its insured based on (1) the pleadings [filed] against the insured and (2) the terms of the insurance policy.”9 Under the eight- corners rule, an insurer’s duty to defend its insured from a underlying suit is determined b

2025“Under the eight-corners rule, the duty to defend is determined by the claims alleged in the petition and the coverage provided in the policy.” Pine Oak, 279 S.W.3d at 654 (citing Nat’l Union Fire Ins.

2024See Nat’l Union Fire Ins., 939 S.W.2d at 141 ; see also Pine Oak, 279 S.W.3d at 654 . - 14 - 04-23-00779-CV F. Exceptions to Consider Extrinsic Evidence Although we conclude that Barnett’s claims are not within the policy’s scope, we must also consider whether the Avalos or Monroe exceptions to the eight-corners rule would allow the trial court to grant Dr. Friedman’s motion to compel Barnett’s deposition.

2012See King, 85 S.W.3d at 187 .

2011Co., 85 S.W.3d 185, 187 (Tex.2002), the court applied the eight-corners rule in determining National *219 Union’s duty to defend. 334 S.W.3d at 239 .

2025Co., 300 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. 2009) (internal citations omitted) (The duty to defend, however, is established according to the eight-corners doctrine, considering only the factual allegations in the pleadings and the terms of the policy.).

2024Co., Ltd., 300 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex. 2009) (“While analysis of the duty to defend has been strictly circumscribed by the eight-corners doctrine, it is well settled that the ‘facts actually established in the underlying suit control the duty to indemnify.’”).

2022Co., 343 S.W.3d 859, 865 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (adopting an exception to the eight-corners rule that is limited to extrinsic evidence that (1) shows the party seeking coverage is a stranger to the policy and (2) goes strictly to an issue of coverage without contradicting any allegation that is material to the merits of the underlying claim). 9 See, e.g., Star-Tex Res., L.L.C. v. Granite State Ins.

2020Co., 343 S.W.3d 859, 865 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (“we are persuaded of the need for a very narrow exception to the eight-corners rule. . . .

2010Co., 981 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (acknowledging the few Texas court of appeals cases that have allowed the use of extrinsic evidence to disprove coverage, but declining to create an exception to the eight-corners rule).

2009Co. , 981 S.W.2d 861, 863 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (acknowledging the few Texas court of appeals cases that have allowed the use of extrinsic evidence to disprove coverage, but declining to create an exception to the eight-corners rule).

2016Co. of Pittsburgh, 334 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Tex.2011) (stating that “the determination as to duty to defend is according to the eight-corners rule wherein only the pleadings and the policy language are considered”); D.R.

2011Co. of Pittsburgh, 334 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Tex.2011) (stating that "the determination as to duty to defend is according to the eight-corners rule wherein only the pleadings and the policy language are considered"); D.R.

2019Under the eight corners rule, we look to the facts alleged within the four corners of the pleadings, measure the facts alleged against the language within the four corners of the insurance policy, and determine if the facts alleged “present a matter that could potentially be covered by the insurance policy.” Ewing Constr., 420 S.W.3d at 33 ; Evanston Ins., 370 S.W.3d at 380 .

2016Co. v. Legacy of Life, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Tex.2012) (stating that “[wjhen determining whether an insurer has a duty to defend, we follow the eight corners rule by looking at the four corners of the complaint for alleged facts that could possibly come within the scope of coverage in the four corners of the insurance policy”); Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry.

2011To support their position, they cite AccuFleet, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. , 322 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.), and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Graham , 473 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 2006), as examples of cases in which courts adhered to the eight-corners rule “if facts were plead[ed] that would qualify the party as an insured.” The appellants cite AccuFleet as a case where the court ignored extrinsic evidence and “specifically looked at the plaintiff’s pleadings to determine whether a party was an additional insured, and therefore, owed a defense under the pol

2011To support their position, they cite AccuFleet, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 322 S.W.3d 264 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.), and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Graham, 473 F.3d 596 (5th Cir.2006), as examples of cases in which courts adhered to the eight- corners rule “if facts were plead[ed] that would quality the party as an insured.” The appellants cite AccuFleet as a case where the court ignored extrinsic evidence and “specifically looked at the plaintiffs pleadings to determine whether a party was an additional insured, and therefore, owed a defense under the policy.

2008Analysis We are bound by the eight-corners rule and although we “liberally construe the allegations in the petition in determining the duty to defend, resolving any doubt in favor of the insured, we will not read facts into the pleadings for that purpose.” Trinity Universal Ins. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 825 (Tex. 1997) (citations omitted).

2008Analysis We are bound by the eight-corners rule and although we “liberally construe the allegations in the petition in determining the duty to defend, resolving any doubt in favor of the insured, we will not read facts into the pleadings for that purpose.” Trinity Universal Ins. v. Co wan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 825 (Tex.1997) (citations omitted).

2020See, e.g., id. at ___; GuideOne Elite Ins.

1997See Heyden Newport Chem Corp., 387 S.W.2d at 23-25 . 6 .

2004In Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical Corporation v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp., former steel mill employees sued toxic chemical manufacturers and suppliers, claiming that the chemicals caused them injuries from 1946 to 1990. 1 F.3d 365, 367 (5 th Cir. 1993).

2004In Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical Corporation v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp., former steel mill employees sued toxic chemical manufacturers and suppliers, claiming that the chemicals caused them injuries from 1946 to 1990. 1 F.3d 365, 367 (5th Cir.1993).

2010Id. at 744 (quoting Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am.

2009See Utica Nat = l , 141 S.W.3d at 201 .

2022But the Fifth Circuit also opined that if this Court were to recognize an exception to the eight-corners rule, it would apply only 6 See, e.g., Boll, 392 S.W.2d at 160 (noting that the plaintiff’s petition did not identify the driver by name, but the parties stipulated that it was the insured’s only son, who was expressly excluded from coverage). 9 “when it is initially impossible to discern whether coverage is potentially implicated and when the extrinsic evidence goes solely to a fundamental issue of coverage which does not overlap with the merits of or engage the truth or falsity of any fac

2006For example, in International Service Insurance Co. v. Boll, 392 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1965, writ ref d n.r.e.), the insurer refused to defend its insured in an auto-collision case because of a policy endorsement that excluded coverage for “any claim arising from accidents which occur while any automobile is being operated by Roy Hamilton Boll.” The plaintiffs petition alleged that the insured’s son was driving the insured’s car when the accident occurred, but did not otherwise identify the driver.

2005Landmark Chevrolet , 121 S.W.3d at 890-91 ; Tri-Coastal Contractors, Inc. v. Hartford Underwriters Ins.

2005See Landmark Chevrolet , 121 S.W.3d at 891 ; Tri-Coastal , 981 S.W.2d at 863-64 .

2019Under the eight corners rule, we look to the facts alleged within the four corners of the pleadings, measure the facts alleged against the language within the four corners of the insurance policy, and determine if the facts alleged “present a matter that could potentially be covered by the insurance policy.” Ewing Constr., 420 S.W.3d at 33 ; Evanston Ins., 370 S.W.3d at 380 .

2016Co., 420 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex.2014) (stating that “Texas courts follow the eight corners rule in determining an insurer’s duty to defend” and that “[ujnder that rule, courts look to the facts alleged within the four corners of the pleadings, measure them against the language within the four corners of the insurance policy, and determine if the facts alleged present a matter that could potentially be' covered by the insurance policy”); Evanston Ins.

2020Co., 322 S.W.3d 264, 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (“We decline to create an exception to the eight corners rule . . . .”). 5 inapplicable unless the policy includes a groundless-claims clause.

2011To support their position, they cite AccuFleet, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 322 S.W.3d 264 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.), and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Graham, 473 F.3d 596 (5th Cir.2006), as examples of cases in which courts adhered to the eight- corners rule “if facts were plead[ed] that would quality the party as an insured.” The appellants cite AccuFleet as a case where the court ignored extrinsic evidence and “specifically looked at the plaintiffs pleadings to determine whether a party was an additional insured, and therefore, owed a defense under the policy.

2023Co., 962 S.W.2d 272, 274 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1998, no pet.). 8 Zurich Am.

1998E & L Chipping , 962 S.W.2d at 276 .

2016See Nokia, Inc., 268 S.W.3d at 491 ; Austin Power, Inc., 357 S.W.3d at 823-24 .

2016See Nokia, Inc., 268 S.W.3d at 491 ; Austin Power, Inc., 357 S.W.3d at 823-24 .

2012Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Tex.1997). *824 In determining whether an insurer has a duty to defend, we follow the eight-corners rule, also known as the complaint-allegation rule: “an insurer’s duty to defend is determined by the third-party plaintiffs pleadings, considered in light of the policy provisions, without regard to the truth or falsity of those allegations.” Zurich, 268 S.W.3d at 491 (quoting GuideOne, 197 S.W.3d at 308 ).

2011Id. at 83 .

2006Corp., 267 F.Supp.2d at 616-622 (concluding that the permissive extrinsic evidence rule is in the minority and increasingly disfavored).

2006Corp. , 267 F. Supp. 2d at 616 B 622 (concluding that the permissive extrinsic evidence rule is in the minority and increasingly disfavored).

2006Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist Church , 197 S.W.3d 305 , 309 B 10 (Tex. 2006) (refusing to recognize an exception to the eight corners rule to consider evidence relating both to coverage and liability); Hallman , 159 S.W.3d at 644 B 45 (inferring a profit motive from the nature of the activity rather than relying on extrinsic evidence of a profit motive); Am.

2006Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305, 309-10 (Tex.2006) (refusing to recognize an exception to the eight corners rule to consider evidence relating both to coverage and liability); Hallman, 159 S.W.3d at 644-45 (inferring a profit motive from the nature of the activity rather than relying on extrinsic evidence of a profit motive); Am.

2023Co., 409 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.). 23 1st letter, he informed Mid-Continent of the voluntary nonsuit of the Clayton Suit, but the letter still refers only to “potential conflicts with joint representation.” Applying the eight-corners rule, we conclude that Clayton’s petition did not allege facts that would necessitate separate counsel.

2022Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 238 (Tex. 2011).