National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc.

Decision Date21 February 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-0633,96-0633
Citation939 S.W.2d 139
Parties40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 353 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Petitioner, v. MERCHANTS FAST MOTOR LINES, INC., Merchants of Texas, Inc., Merchants Truckload Company, Inc., and Gordon D. Hart, Respondents.
CourtTexas Supreme Court
OPINION

PER CURIAM

This is a declaratory judgment action. The issue is whether a truck driver's allegedly negligent discharge of a gun, killing a passenger in another vehicle, triggers a duty to defend under the truck owner's vehicle liability policy. The trial court rendered summary judgment holding the insurer had no duty to defend. The court of appeals reversed. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment for the insurer.

The underlying pleadings allege that while operating a Merchants Fast Motor Lines truck, Gordon D. Hart "negligently discharged a firearm and caused a bullet to strike" Casimiro Gonzalez, who was a passenger in a van traveling alongside Hart's truck. Gonzalez later died from the gunshot wound. These are the only facts about the shooting in the pleadings. Gonzalez's parents and children brought a wrongful death action, alleging that Hart was negligent in handling a firearm. They also alleged that Merchants was negligent in hiring Hart and in failing to provide proper supervision of its driver. Merchants and Hart requested that National Union defend them in the underlying suit under either a commercial general liability policy or a truckers policy that National Union issued. National Union disputed its duty to defend Hart under the CGL policy in both its declaratory judgment action and on appeal. However, in a single point of error to this Court, National Union complains only that the court of appeals erred in reversing the summary judgment on its duty to defend Merchants and Hart under the truckers policy.

National Union's truckers policy provides:

We will pay all sums an insured legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an accident and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered auto.

Although the court of appeals cautioned that a fully developed record was necessary to determine whether coverage exists, it held that plaintiffs' allegations stated a cause of action potentially covered by the policy. We disagree.

If a petition does not allege facts within the scope of coverage, an insurer is not legally required to defend a suit against its insured. American Physicians Ins. Exch. v. Garcia, 876 S.W.2d 842, 848 (Tex.1994); Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. McManus, 633 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.1982). An insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the pleadings and the language of the insurance policy. Heyden Newport Chem. Corp. v. Southern Gen. Ins. Co., 387 S.W.2d 22, 26 (Tex.1965); American Physicians, 876 S.W.2d at 847-48; Argonaut Southwest Ins. Co. v. Maupin, 500 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex.1973). This is sometimes referred to as the "eight corners" rule. See Cluett v. Medical Protective Co., 829 S.W.2d 822, 829 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1992, writ denied).

When applying the eight corners rule, we give the allegations in the petition a liberal interpretation. As this Court has explained:

Where the complaint does not state facts sufficient to clearly bring the case within or without the coverage, the general rule is that the insurer is obligated to defend if there is, potentially, a case under the complaint within the coverage of the policy. Stated differently, in case of doubt as to whether or not the allegations of a complaint against the insured state a cause of action within the coverage of a liability policy sufficient to compel the insurer to defend the action, such doubt will be resolved in insured's favor.

Heyden, 387 S.W.2d at 26 (citing 50 A.L.R.2D 458, 504). However, as the court of appeals stated, "[i]n reviewing the underlying pleadings, the court must focus on the factual allegations that show the origin of the damages rather than on the legal theories alleged." 919 S.W.2d at 905. See also Adamo v. State Farm Lloyds Co., 853 S.W.2d 673, 676 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied) ("It is not the cause of action alleged that determines coverage but the facts giving rise to the alleged actionable conduct") (emphasis in original).

The only facts alleged in the underlying case are that Hart was operating a Merchants truck when he negligently discharged a firearm injuring Gonzalez. Given their most liberal interpretation, these allegations do not suggest that Gonzalez's injury resulted from the use of the truck. The allegation that Hart "was operating the tractor-trailer" is enough to allege "use of a covered auto." See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pan Am. Ins. Co., 437 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Tex.1969) ("The term 'use' is the general catchall of the insuring clause, designed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
481 cases
  • Simco Enterprises, Ltd. v. James River Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • July 11, 2008
    ...Co., 141 S.W.3d at 201; Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Tex.1997); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex.1997). In Texas, when determining an insurer's duty to defend an insured, the court follows the "eight corn......
  • Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 16, 1997
    ...the insured, Heyden, 387 S.W.2d at 26, we will not read facts into the pleadings for that purpose. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.1997). Accordingly, even assuming that physical manifestations are inseparable from mental anguish in some......
  • Westport v. Atchley, Fussell, Waldrop & Hlavinka
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • April 10, 2003
    ...from the duty to indemnify. King v. Dallas Fire Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 185 (Tex.2002) (citing Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. 1997)). Also, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. The first question Texas courts face is......
  • Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wood Energy Group, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • February 19, 2009
    ...facts that potentially support claims for which there is coverage. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. 1997). If a lawsuit does not allege facts within the scope of coverage, an insurer is not required to defend. Allstate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 6 Duty to Defend/duty to Indemnify
    • United States
    • The Handbook on Additional Insureds (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 476 N.E.2d 272 (N.Y. 1984).[31] . Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. 1997).[32] . D.R. Horton-Tex., Ltd. v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co., 300 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Tex. 2009).[33] . Int'l Paper Co. v. Cont'l Cas. ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Handbook on Additional Insureds (ABA)
    • Invalid date
    ...Midwest, 677 N.Y.S.2d 105 (App. Div. 1998), 30n69, 174n70 Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. 1997), 115n31 Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. R. Olson Construction Contractors, Inc., 769 N.E.2d 977 (Ill. Ct. App. 2002)......
  • Chapter 6 Insurance Coverage in an Environmental Case: Focus on Claims Handling
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Litigating an Energy, Natural Resources, or Environmental Case (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Storage, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 43 So.3d 168, 170 (Fla. App. 2010); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. 1997) 14 See McGroarty v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 329 N.E.2d 172, 176 (N.Y. 1975); Advanced Systems, Inc. v. Gotham Insurance Co., 272......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT