Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20629 Su m m ar y Cal endar

BJ B CONS TR UCTI ON LL C P la in tiff v. AT LA NTI C CA S UALT Y I NSURANCE COM PA NY D efen d a n t- T h i rd P a rty P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v . T EXAS MUTUA L I NS URA NCE C O. T h i rd P art y D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee
A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 157

B ef ore JO L L Y , B E N AV ID E S , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Th i s i s an appealf

r om a s um m ar y j udgm entgr ant ed i n fav or of Texas M u t u alI n suran ce C o. ( “ T exas M u t u al ” ) hol di n g t h at Texa s M u t u alw as not ob l i ga ted to d efen d a p a rty i n th e un d erlying l a w su i t a n d th a t A tl a n ti c C a su a l ty United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 13, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20629

2 I nsur ance C om pany ( “A t l ant i c ” ) w as not ent i t l ed t o r ei m burs em entf r om Texas M u tu a l
. F or th e fol l ow i n g re a son s, w e a ff i rm the j u d gm en t of

the distri ct cou rt. I. A n to n i o R u i z, the plain ti ff i n the u n d erlying l a w su i t, ass erted cl a im s agai nstB JB C ons t r uct i on, L. L. C
. ( “ B JB C on str uct i on” ) and E
. G ar za & Ass o c i at e s , I nc . ( “ E. G ar z a” )
. Rui z a l l e ge d t hathe sus t ai ne d i nj ur i e s on o r a bo ut A p r il 4 , 2 0 0 4 , w h e n s c a ffo ld in gc o lla p s e d a t a jo b s ite in H o u s to n , T e x a s . R u iz cl ai m ed hi s i nj uri es w er e c ause d by t he negl i genc e o f E
. G ar za and B JB C o n s tr u c tio n a n d th a t b o th E . G a r z a a n d B J B C o n s t r u c tio n w e r e n e g lig e n t in t he f o l l o w i ng r e s pe c t s : ( 1) fai l ur e t o m ai nt ai n and/o r pr o vi de pr o pe r e qui pm e nt to w ork ers a n d / or su b con tractor s an d i n d ep en d en t co n tr a c to rs; ( 2 ) fai l u re to p rov i d e a d eq u a te sa fety p oli ci es a n d p r a c tice s; ( 3 ) fai l u re to p rov i d e a d eq u a te
s af e t y e qui pm e nt ; ( 4) fai l ur e t o pr o vi de pr o pe r as s i s t anc e ; ( 5) fai l ur e t o pr o vi de properl y t rai n ed s u pervi sors an d/ or di rect ors; an d ( 6) requi ri n g R u i z t o perf orm t asks u n der t h e condit i on s s t ated abov e. At l ant i c i ns ur e d E. G ar z a unde r a co m m e r c i alge ne r all i ab i l i t y po l i c y and T exas M u t u ali n sured E
. G arza u n der a T exas w o rk e rs ’co m p e n sa tion /em p loyers ’ l i ab i l i t y po l i c y. E. G ar z a pr o vi de d a c o py o f Rui z ’ s pe t i t i o n t o b o t h At l ant i c a nd Tex as M ut ual , r e que s t i ng t hatt h e car r i e r s pr o vi de i t a de fe ns e t o t he a c t i o n. A t l an t i c t en d e re d a defen se t o E
. G arza an d to B JB C on st ructi on un der a
r eserva t i o n o f

r i ght s . Te xa s M ut ual , b e l i e vi ng t hatt he a l l e ga t i o ns i n t he p eti ti on d i d n ot i m p l i ca te cov era ge u n d er it s p oli cy , did n ot ten d er a de fen se to E
. G ar za. The u n der l yi ng l aw sui t s et t l ed i n 2007, w i t h A t l ant i c payi ng a $27 5, 000 set t l em en tan d i n curri n g E
. G arza’ s defen se c ost s. At l ant i c f

i l e d a d ecl arat o r y j udg m e nta c t i o n i n whi c h At l ant i c s o ugh t rei m bu rsem en ta n d contribu t i on fr om T exas M u t u alf or defen se c ost s i n curred and se t t l e m e ntm o ni e s pai d byA t l ant i c on b e hal f o f E. G ar z a i n t he und e r l yi ng s ui t
. Tex as M ut ual c o unt e r c l ai m e d f o r a de c l ar at o r y j udg m e nt t hat i t h ad noN o. 08- 20629

3 du t y t o defen d or i n dem n i f y E
. G arza i n the u n derl yi n g l aw sui t an d, t h eref ore, n o lia b il i t y t o A t l an t i c. B ot h A t l an t i c and T exas M u t u alf i l ed m ot i on s f

or sum m ary j u dg m en tregardi n g w h et h er Tex as M u t u alha d a d u t y t o d efen d or i n dem n i f

y E
. G arza i n t h e un derl yi n g l aw sui t
. A t l an t i c t h en f i l ed a m ot i on f

or l e av e t o a m e nd i t s c o m pl ai nt , w hi c h t he di s t r i c t c o ur t de ni e d. I n a m e m o r and um op in ion a n d or d e r, th e d istr ict co u rt g ra n te d T e x a s M u tu a l’ s m ot i on f or s u m m ary j u d gm en t, h oldin g th a t T ex a s M u tu a low ed E
. G a rza n o d u ty to d e fe n d o r to i ndem ni f

y i n t he u nder l yi ng l aw sui t
. Fi nal j udgm entw as ent er ed o n A pri l23, 200 8, p ro v i di n g t h at ( 1) “ T exas M u t u alow ed E
. G arza n o du t y of defen se or i n dem n i t y, ” ( 2) “ T exas M u t u alha s no du t y t o rei m bu rse A t l an t i c f or t h e cos t s of defense an d set t l em en t , ” an d ( 3) “A t l an t i c t ak e nothi n g i n i t s c l ai m s agai n st Tex as M ut ual
. ” At l ant i c f i l e d a Rul e 5 9( e ) M o t i o n o n M ay6 , 2 00 8, w hi c h t he
c our t deni ed. Atl ant i c f i l ed t he i nst ant appealon Sept em ber15, 2008.

II. T h i s C ou rt revi ew s a di st ri ct court’ s gran t of sum m ary j u dg m en t de n ovo, a p p l y i n gth e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. St r o ng v . Uni v . He al t hc are Sy s . , L
. L. C. , 4 8 2 F .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 0 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). S u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is p r o p e rif t he r e c o r d r e f

l e ct s “ t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m at e r i alfac ta nd th a t th e m o v a n t is en titled to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w .” F e d
. R . C iv. P
. 5 6 (c). U nde r Te xa s l aw, w hi c h g o ve r ns t hi s dive r s i t y s ui t , e va l uat i o n o f t he p e t i t i on an d the pol i cy i s c on du ct ed p u rsuan t t o t h e “ ei gh t cor n ers” rul e. G u aran ty Nat’

lIn s. C o. v. V

i c M f g. Co. , 1 43 F. 3d 1 92 , 1 93 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 8) ( c i t i ng Nat ’l Uni o n Fi r e I

ns . Co. v . Me r c hant s Fas tMo t o rLi ne s , I nc . , 939 S. W
. 2d 139, 1 4 1 ( Te x . 1 9 9 7 ) )
. Und e r t h i s r u l e , “ t h e c o u r t c o m p a r e s t h e f o u r c o r n e r s o f

t he i ns ur anc e po l i c y w i t h t he f o urcor n ers of

t he pl ai nt i f

f ’ s pl e ad i ng t o de t e r m i ne w h et h er an y cl ai m al l eged by the pl ead i n g i s pot en t i al l y w i t h i n t h e pol i cy cov era ge . ” Id
. Court s “ m ustf oc us t hei r r evi ew on t he pl eadi ng’ s fac t ual
a l l eg a ti on s, n ot on the l eg a lthe ories a sse rted
. ” Nat’ lUn i on , 939 S
. W
. 2d at 142.N o. 08- 20629

I n determinin g wheth er T ex as Mutualh ad aduty to defend E. Garzainth e 1 und erlying

suit, th e di strict court co nside red deposition testimony submitted byT ex as Mutual that establi shed that Ruizworked for Francisco Garciaand not E. Garza . Although “[f]acts outsi de th e plea dings, even those easily ascert ain ed, are ordin arily not materi al to the [duty to defend]de termin atio n,” Lib ert y Mut. Ins. Co. v. Graham , 4 7 3 F .3 d 5 9 6 , 6 0 0 (5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6),

4 A c o ur t i nt e r pr e t s t he al l e ga t i o ns l i be r al l y and re s o l ve s al ldo ubt s r e ga r di ng t he dut y t o def

e nd i n fav o r of

t he i ns ur e d, butt he co ur t m ayno t r e ad fac t s i nt o t he pl e ad i ngs , l o o k o ut s i de t he pl e ad i ngs , o r i m ag i ne fac t uals c e nar i o s t hatm i ght tr ig g e r c o v e r a g e . I

d. at 141 –42 ; see al so Tr i ni ty Uni v e r s alIns . C o . v . Cowan , 945 S. W
. 2d 81 9, 8 25 ( Tex
. 1 99 7) ( r e f us i ng t o “ r e ad fac t s i nt o t he pl e ad i ngs ” f o rt he p u rp o se of e sta b li sh in ga d u ty to d e fen d ). T ex a s M u tu a l ’ s p oli cy i s a w ork ers’ com p en sa ti on a n d em p l oy er’ s l i a b i l i ty p o lic y th a t p r o v id e s co v e r a g e fo r c l a i m s b y E . G a r z a ’ s e m p lo y e e s o r th e ir survi vors f

or i nj u ri es ordeaths occurri n g t o E
. G arza’ s em pl oyees in the cou rse an d scope of t h ei r em pl oym en t
. U n l i ke A t l an t i c’ s pol i cy, T exas M u t u al ’ s pol i cy i s l i m i t e d t o c l ai m s ar i s i ng f r o m o n- t he

- j o b i nj ur i e s by E. G ar z a’ s e m pl o ye e s a nd does n ot provi de com m erci algen erall i abil i t y coverage. I n h i s p l e a d i n g s i n t h e u n d e r l y i n gl a ws u i t , Ru i z n e v e r a l l e ge d t ha tE. G arza w as h i s em pl oyer. E
. G arza w as a sub contract or on a constr u ct i on proj ect du ri n g t h e peri od covered by the i n suran ce pol i ci es. R u i z pl ead ed all egati on s of
n eg l i ge n ce rel a ti n g t o E
. G a rza ’ s fa i l u re to p rov i d e: p rop er eq u i p m en t, ad eq u a te
s af e t y po l i c i e s a nd pr ac t i c e s , ad e qua t e s af e t y e qui pm e nt , pr o pe r a s s i s t anc e , a nd properl y t rai n ed su pervi sors . R u i z m ad e t h e sam e al l eg a tion s agai n stboth of t he def endant s i n t he und er l yi ng s ui t
. H e di d nots t at e a ny addi t i onalfac t s t hat
w ou l d su p p ort a n e m p l oy m en t re l a ti on sh i p . A s rea son ed by the distri ct cou rt, t h e a ll e g a t io n s a r e fo c u s e d o n c o n t r o l o f t h e w o r k p la c e e n v ir o n m e n t , n o t R u iz ’s
e m pl o ym e nt
. A c o ur tc anno tr e ad fac t s i nt o the pl e ad i ngs t o e s t ab l i s h a pl aus i bl e e m pl oym en t r e l at i o ns hi p. Thus , und e r t he e i ght

- c o r ne r s r ul e , t he peti t i on di d n ot al l ege a cl ai m w i t h i n t h e T exas M u t u alpolic y’ s c overage. 1N o. 08- 20629

intermediate T ex as appell ate courts and this court have hel d that extrin sic evi dencemaybe lookedto when (1) the plea dings inth e underlyinglawsuit fail to alle gefacts implicating or exclu ding

coverage and (2) the extrin sic evidence go es only to the coverage issue and does not co ntr a dictanythin ginth e pl ea din g s. W. Heritage Ins. C o. v. River En tm’t , 99 8 F.2d 311 , 31 3 (5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 3); StateF arm F ire &C as. C o. v. Wade , 8 2 7S .W .2 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 2

– 5 3(T ex . App . 1 9 9 2 ). This e xce ptionh as b een ackno wledged by the Tex as Supre me Court, thou ghith as not b een explicitlyacc ep te d. See, e. g., Zu ri chA m. I ns. C o. v . No k ia , 268 S. W.3 d 4 87, 497– 98 (Tex. 200 8). Inany event, the district co urt’s consi derationof such evidence wa s no t error because—even exclu ding th e deposition testimony— the plea dings did not alle gea clai m that wa s withinth e po licy’sc over a ge. We do not find that the dist ric t cour t abus ed its dis cre tio n in denying Atla nticleave 2 to amen d it s compl aint b ecau se th e a dditio nalallegatio ns wereimmat erial to th e o utco me of th e suit
. See Cen t. Lab orers’ P ensio n Fu nd v. I

ntegrate d Elec. Servs . I nc ., 49 7 F .3d 5 46, 551 (5thC ir. 2 008) (holding t ha titis not an abu se of discretion to de nyle ave toame nd when a me n dm ent wo uldh ave b ee nf utile). 5 Fu r t her m or e, be c ause Texas M u tualhad no dut y t o de fend E
. G ar za, Texas M u t u alha s no obl iga ti on t o i n dem n i f y E
. G arza an d n o l i abil i t y t o A t l an t i c f or set t l em en tcos t s. S ee Nobl e E n ergy, I n c. v. B i t u m i n ou s Cas. Co. , 529 F. 3d 642, 2 649 ( 5th C i r. 2 008 ) ( n ot i n g t h at t h e du t y t o i n dem n i f y u n der an i n suran ce pol i cy is n a rr o w e r th a n th e d u ty to d e fen d ). T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D
.