Court Opinion

ID: 9654843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:52:42.03011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.084433
License: Public Domain

KINKEADE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would hold that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether Northlake Woodlands Joint Venture’s complaint alleged a loss of use of tangible property within the insurance policies’ property damage provisions that would invoke Commonwealth Lloyd’s Insurance Company’s duty to defend Terra International, Inc.
We must liberally construe Northlake’s allegations, without regard to their truth or falsity, to determine if they fall within the insurance policies’ provisions. If any doubt arises as to whether the allegations reflect a “potential liability,” we must resolve that doubt in Terra’s favor. Heyden Newport Chem. Corp. v. Southern Gen. Ins. Co., 387 S.W.2d 22, 24, 26 (Tex.1965); Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co., 739 S.W.2d 608, 612 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no writ). Commonwealth has no duty to defend Terra, however, if Northlake’s *274petition alleged facts excluded by the policies. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. McManus, 633 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex.1982); see Continental Casualty Co. v. Hall, 761 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 932, 110 S.Ct. 2174, 109 L.Ed.2d 503 (1990).
I agree with the majority that, for North-lake’s petition to invoke Commonwealth’s duty to defend Terra, Northlake must have alleged “physical injury to or the destruction of tangible property.” I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Northlake’s petition failed to make such an allegation. Liberally construed, Northlake’s petition alleged that:
—Terra negligently omitted to perform flood control work on Northlake’s property.
—Terra negligently performed numerous work projects that were not part of and were in excess of the district’s approved reclamation plan.
—Terra negligently failed to provide final construction plans and specification for projects within the district.
—Terra negligently financed, developed, and controlled the project.
Further, Northlake’s petition prayed for actual damages.
I would hold that these allegations, in conjunction with Terra’s prayer for actual damages, raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Terra unintentionally physically injured or destroyed North-lake’s tangible property. At a minimum, I would hold that these allegations reflect a “potential liability,” which we must resolve in Terra’s favor. Because I would hold that a fact issue exists and that the trial court erred when it found as a matter of law that Commonwealth had no duty to defend, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings.