Send this document to a
colleague

Close
This Window

Affirmed
and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed February 14, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court
of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00662-CV

____________

GENERAL STAR
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant

V.

GULF COAST
MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2003-06535A

D I S S E
N T I N G   O P I N I O N

I
respectfully disagree with the majority=s
conclusion that General Star owed Gulf Coast a
duty to defend.
Specifically, I disagree with the majority=s
conclusion that the petition in the underlying
lawsuit alleges facts within the scope of coverage of the
insurance policy.

The
majority is correct that in reviewing a petition under an eight‑corners
analysis, we resolve any doubt regarding coverage in favor of the
insured.  See Nat=l Union
Fire Ins.,
Inc. v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141
(Tex. 1997).  However, this does not mean that we presume coverage in
the absence of statements in the petition creating or disavowing
coverage.  To the contrary, if a pleading does not allege facts that
would create coverage under the policy, an insurer is not legally required
to defend the suit against its insured.  Id. at 141.
Stated conversely, when a pleading only alleges facts excluded by the
policy, the insurer has no duty to defend.  Fid. & Guar. Ins.
Underwriters, Inc. v. McManus, 633 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex. 1982).
We will not read facts into the pleadings or imagine factual scenarios in
order to find covered claims.  Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc.,
939 S.W.2d at 142.

A fair
reading of the Juniper petition reveals that no claim is made for any
asserted damage to the well stub or net protector.  All references to
damages in the petition occur in context of damage to the well
itself.  The facts section repeatedly alleges damage to the well:
Athe mat of
the jackup rig . . . bent the well,@
Aremedial
operations were required, including installation of a caisson on the
well,@
Athe Gulf
Coast mover was warned of potential damage to the well,@
Athe well
stub appeared to be leaning plus or minus 5_ to the
southwest, which was later confirmed to be the damage to the well
described above,@ and
Adamage to
Plaintiff=s
well was
already sustained@ (emphasis
added).  The causes of action section twice claims damage to the
wellCAthe PRIDE
ARKANSAS striking Plaintiff=s
well@ and
APlaintiff=s well
required repairs, restoration and remediation@Cbut makes
no mention of the well stub or net protector.  The damages section
details restoration expenses that were asserted earlier in the petition in
connection with damage to the well.  In reviewing the underlying
pleadings, the court must focus on the factual allegations that show the
origin of the damages rather than the legal theories alleged.
Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d at 141.
Because
I do not read Juniper=s petition
as factually alleging a claim for damage to the well stub, I would reverse
the trial court=s judgment
and render judgment in favor of General Star.

/s/
Leslie B. Yates

Justice

Judgment
Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed February 14,
2008.

Panel
consists of Justices Yates, Fowler, and Guzman (Guzman, J.,
majority).