In November, the Texas Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the Fifth Circuit directly calling into question the continued vitality of the well-known “eight corners rule,” under which a liability insurer can only consider the four corners of the live pleading and the four corners of its policy in deciding whether to defend its insured. As we noted in this blog when the Texas Supreme Court accepted the certified question, the case involved an ATV accident in which Jayden Mills, the young driver, was killed. His mother sued the Richardses, alleging they were negligent in failing to supervise and instruct Jayden.
Continue Reading Still Only Eight Corners?: The Texas Supreme Court Decides Richards v. State Farm
Headline: “SXSW Disaster: Event Admits It Has No Insurance for Coronavirus Cancellation”
That headline appeared Saturday in Music Business Worldwide, a trade paper, as well as in numerous other journals ranging from Variety to the Austin Chronicle. If you dug a little deeper, you would see that there was cancellation insurance for the ten-day event. But that coverage was excluded for bacterial infections, communicable diseases, viruses and pandemics.
Continue Reading Headline: “SXSW Disaster: Event Admits It Has No Insurance for Coronavirus Cancellation”
Assault on the Citadel? The Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Reconsider the “Eight Corners Rule”
Insurance practitioners in Texas are familiar with the so-called “eight corners rule” applied by Texas Courts to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend a suit against its insured. The “eight corners rule” is simply summarized:
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. The rule takes its name from the fact that only two documents are ordinarily relevant to the determination of the duty to defend: the policy and the pleadings of the third-party claimant. Facts outside the pleadings, even those easily ascertained, are ordinarily not material to the determination and allegations against the insured are liberally construed in favor of coverage.Continue Reading Assault on the Citadel? The Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Reconsider the “Eight Corners Rule”
Ain’t Going to Study War Exclusions No More… Or Are We? Universal Cable Productions LLC v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co. (9th Cir., July 12 2019)
Many insurance policies contain a “war exclusion,” which states that there is no coverage for loss resulting from “war,” “warlike action by a military force,” or “insurrection, rebellion, [or] revolution.” Does the exclusion apply when a militant faction—specifically Hamas—shoots rockets into an area where the insured is conducting activities?
Continue Reading Ain’t Going to Study War Exclusions No More… Or Are We? Universal Cable Productions LLC v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co. (9th Cir., July 12 2019)
A Word to the Wise About Concurrent Causation
Hurricane Season 2019 is upon us as of June 1. NOAA’s crystal ball predicts an “average” hurricane season this year; to NOAA, “average” means “a likely range of 9 to 15 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher), of which four to eight could become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including two to four major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher).”[1] By comparison, NOAA predicted that 2018, which produced Hurricane Michael, the first Cat 5 hurricane to come ashore in the continental U.S. since 1992, would be “near or above-normal.”[2] And 2017 produced Harvey, Irma, Maria and Nate.
Continue Reading A Word to the Wise About Concurrent Causation