Opinion ID: 25144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Being stored, disposed of, treated or

Text: processed in or upon the covered auto.” True enough, some of the claimants’ allegations are eliminated from Farmers’s responsibility by the pollution exclusions; yet several remain susceptible of an interpretation that places them outside the purview of the pollution exclusion, thereby obligating Farmers to defend the insured from these. For example, the claimants 12 Clarendon, 10 F. Supp. 2d at 741 (citing Nautilus Ins. Co., 114 F.3d at 538). 13 Enserch Corp. v. Shand Morahan & Co., Inc., 952 F.2d 1485, 1492 (5th Cir. 1992)(“If any allegation in the complaint is even potentially covered by the policy then the insurer has a duty to defend its insured.”). 7 allege: “Operation of the normally illegally tarped vehicles carrying sand, gravel and cement, off paved surfaces and onto areas where the sand, gravel and caliche has settled serves to cause more particulates and toxic substances to enter the lungs of the Plaintiffs herein....” “Defendants employ or permit drivers of vehicles to come into the facility, and the drivers do not use the permanent roads or portions of the facility with a cohesive hard surface. As a result, the vehicles scatter toxic and non-toxic substances, which would then contact Plaintiffs.” “Operation of vehicles off paved surfaces and onto areas where the dry cement has settled causes more particulates and toxic substances to contact plaintiffs.” These allegations are subject to the reasonable interpretation that some of the pollutants allegedly causing injury were not being transported by the insured’s vehicles, but rather were already lying on the surface of unpaved roads and trails by virtue of prior escapement from other haulers and were thereafter stirred up by passing vehicles, including some belonging to the insured, of a type covered by the policies. 3. Extrinsic Evidence Farmers also argues that the claimants’ Exposure Event Forms (“Event Forms”), purportedly incorporated into the claimants’ complaints, as well as an internal Farmers Group Commercial Lines Manual (“Policy Manual”), preclude its duty to defend. These contentions too are unavailing. 8 The Policy Manual is clearly outside of the “eight corners” rule and, as extrinsic evidence, could only be offered if it fits the limited exceptions to the rule. Moreover, even if we could properly review it, the Policy Manual only defines the type of vehicles Farmers intended to cover; it does not clarify whether the covered vehicles are the ones referenced in the claimants’ allegations. Similarly, the Event Forms, assuming they are eligible for our consideration, do not preclude coverage. First, the Event Forms are voluminous and may only be considered if their incorporation by reference in the claimants’ complaints is sufficient to bring them within the eight corners rule. Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the Event Forms can properly be considered under that rule, we have already concluded that a duty to defend arises when the complaints’ “general” allegations are potentially covered by the policies. Hence, Farmers’s argument that the allegations in the Event Forms do not come within its policies’ purview, is fruitless.14 III.