Opinion ID: 63283
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Orient's Allegations

Text: While not a model of clarity, the Statement of Claim in this case clearly references BaySys, contends that BaySys is Gore's agent and seeks to hold Gore responsible for its alleged negligence in hiring the wrong people for the job. Under the Policy, Gore is an additional insured with respect to BaySys's operations or work. Your work is defined in the Policy as work or operations performed by you or on your behalf. Your refers to BaySys. Operations is not defined in the Policy. Thus, if the Statement of Claim alleges liability against Gore with respect to BaySys's operations or work performed by or on its behalf, then the Policy covers Gore, subject to certain Policy exclusions discussed below. Here the Statement of Claim clearly implicates BaySys's work by stating that BaySys was employed by Gore and acted as its agent. By making that statement in the section defining Gore, the Statement of Claim could be read to include BaySys in the allegations against Gore. Although it could also be read another way, where there is doubt, there is a duty to defend. Hochheim Prairie Cas. Ins. Co. v. Appleby, 255 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.San Antonio 2008), pet filed. [A]llegations [of the underlying petition] are given a liberal interpretation, and any doubts regarding whether the allegations trigger a defense are resolved in favor of the insured. Id. at 150 (citing Heyden Newport Chem. Corp., 387 S.W.2d at 26). This case is similar to a case decided by the Dallas Court of Appeals. Global Sun Pools, Inc. v. Burlington Ins. Co., No. 05-03-00765-CV, 2004 WL 878283, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7552 (Tex.App.Dallas Aug.23, 2004, no pet.). In that case, Global built a pool for the Reeds. They sued, alleging that Global sent its builders to construct the pool and deck and that, as a result of faulty workmanship, Mrs. Reed was injured when the deck railing collapsed. Id. 2004 WL 878283 at , 2004 Tex.App. LEXIS 7552 at . The actual builder of the pool, Paul Simmons, was not named in the petition. He had a policy of insurance naming Global as an additional insured and listing his business as installing pools. The court held that, construing the term its builders liberally, the petition stated a claim that was potentially within Simmons' policy coverage, although it did not name Simmons. Id. 2004 WL 878283 at , 2004 Tex.App. LEXIS 7552 at . Accordingly, the court found that the insurance company had a duty to defend Global. Similarly, our court construed vague allegations to support a conclusion that the defendant could be his employer's permissive user under the employer's automobile policy. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Graham, 473 F.3d 596, 601 (5th Cir.2006). In that case, the plaintiff alleged a long history of the defendant's personal use of the vehicle with company permission and noted that the company regularly allows some of its employees, including Defendant Graham to drive business vehicles for personal use. Id. at 599. However, the petition did not expressly allege that the defendant was a permissive user on the occasion in question. Id. Applying the liberal interpretation rules required by Texas law, our court held that the insurer owed the defendant a duty to defend. Id. at 601-02. We have an even clearer case here, since BaySys is expressly mentioned, and Gore is expressly accused of being responsible for BaySys as its agent. Cf. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Valley Forge Ins. Group, 535 F.3d 359 (5th Cir.2008) (no duty to defend because there was no allegation of agency or control as required to bring the case within the policy's coverage). Accordingly, unless an exclusion applies under the Policy, Hartford has a duty to defend.