Source: http://texas-opinions.com/09-D-R-Horton-Texas-Ltd-v-Markel-Int-Ins-Co-Tex-2009-duty-to-defend-defense-costs-indemnification.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:55:12+00:00

Document:
View Electronic Briefs in D.R. HORTON-TEXAS, LTD. V. MARKEL INT'L INS. CO.
Justice Guzman did not participate in this decision.
expense for the Holmeses’ lawsuit and settled with the Holmeses during voir dire.
to defend and duty to indemnify it against the Holmeses’ lawsuit.
for rehearing, after our opinion issued in Guideone Elite Insurance Co. v. Fielder Road Baptist Church, 197 S.W.
also James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 917 (Tex. 1982).
noted in Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Griffin that one duty may exist without the other. 955 S.
Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 821–22 (Tex. 1997).
the eight-corners doctrine, considering only the factual allegations in the pleadings and the terms of the policy.
Pine Oak, 279 S.W.3d at 654; Cowan, 945 S.W.2d at 821.
injuries caused by a drive-by shooting could form the basis for coverage under an automobile insurance policy.
does not necessarily depend on the existence or proof of the other.
indemnify is triggered by the actual facts establishing liability in the underlying suit”).
policy or other proof may establish or refute, before or during trial, the existence of CGL coverage for D.R.
circumstances of the case and other legal and equitable principles.
court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Drake is not a party to this appeal.
arises only when the insured’s underlying liability is established.
14 Couch on Insurance § 200:3.
22234928, at*14 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2003).
4 Several authorities have mistakenly cited Griffin for this proposition. See, e.g., Reser v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
duty to indemnify.”), rev’d on other grounds, 248 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2008)).

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 200
 v.