Opinion ID: 2779217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: The Policy insures Thomas Sinclair’s “employees . . . for acts within the scope of their employment.” Although the Petition is not entirely consistent or clear in its characterization of the relationship between the Price Defendants and Thomas Sinclair, it never alleges that they are his employees. Rather, to the extent that it suggests any employment relationship between them, it appears to allege that it was Sinclair who was the employee. 11 Even construing the Petition liberally, we see nothing to support the Price Defendants’ theory. The Price Defendants urge the opposite conclusion based on their reading of two other statements in the Petition. The Petition makes the following statement in its “Facts” section: “While at the club, Mr. Ramirez was stopped from leaving the club by its employees and he was then falsely imprisoned in the club.” Then, several pages later in the “Negligence” section, 8 GuideOne, 197 S.W.3d at 308. 9 Evanston Ins. Co. v. Legacy of Life, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Tex. 2012) (emphasis added); see also Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81, 82 (Tex. 1997). 10 Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 825 (Tex. 1997) (citation omitted). 11 The Petition states that MTP and TOM, “in the alternative, owned the Mustang property at the time of the Ramirez’ [sic] killing and maintained a principal/agent, master/servant and/or respondeat superior relationship with Thomas Sinclair whereby Defendant Sinclair would operate and manage the Wispers Cabaret at the behest of land owners [MTP] and [TOM].” Furthermore, “[a]t all times material hereto, Thomas Sinclair was acting within his course and scope of agency and/or employment with these two Defendants.” 6 Case: 14-10317 Document: 00512935735 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/12/2015 No. 14-10317 after a long list of complaints against all “Defendants,” the petition states: “In the alternative, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants falsely imprisoned Plaintiff against his will causing Plaintiff damages.” The Price Defendants submit that “a fair reading and reasonable inference” of these statements is that “Defendants” and “employees” are synonymous for the purpose of the false imprisonment claim, and thus, the Price Defendants, as a subset of all “Defendants,” are employees of Thomas Sinclair. We cannot agree with this logic. Most obviously, the Price Defendants fail to explain how MTP and TOM, a partnership and a limited liability company, can be employees at all, let alone employees who falsely imprisoned Ramirez on October 1, 2008, particularly given that the Petition alleges that they were not formed until December 31 of the following year. 12 The Price Defendants also ignore the Petition’s many other uses of “Defendants” and “employees” that make it obvious that these terms are not synonymous. The only plausible and internally consistent reading of the Petition is that the first statement was a factual allegation and the second was an assertion of vicarious liability. And, to the extent that a pleading must be read liberally in favor of insurance coverage, this liberal construction does not apply to legal conclusions: The second statement certainly is that. A straightforward eight-corners analysis of the Petition reveals no allegations that would qualify the Price Defendants as additional insureds under the terms of the Policy. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of Colony’s motion for summary judgment on this basis. If MTP and TOM are not employees, then “employees” and “Defendants” are not 12 synonymous. In that case, there is nothing suggesting that Price was an employee, either. 7 Case: 14-10317 Document: 00512935735 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/12/2015 No. 14-10317