Eight Corners Rule Concludes Policy and Suit Establish No Occurrence

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intentional-act-without-intent-damage-clearly-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3550 posts.

ichelle Latray appealed the trial court’s rendition of summary judgment in favor of Colony Insurance Company d/b/a Colony Specialty Insurance Company (hereinafter “Colony”). In Michelle Latray As Receiver Of The Assets Of Clifton Boatright v. Colony Insurance Company , No. 07-19-00350-CV, Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo (January 11, 2021) was asked to determine if an intentional act alleged in suit was sufficient to refuse both defense and indemnity to the bankrupt insured.

ZALMA OPINION

The Eight Corners rule, that I have never liked, limits the court to the allegations of the suit and the wording of the policy, when deciding to defend an insured. The suit alleged the intent to dump and the policy refused to defend anyone whose intentional acts caused damage. There was no question Boatright intended to dump the debris on Roberts’ property and, therefore, there was no “occurrence” and no duty to defend or indemnify.