D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel International Insurance Company, Ltd.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether an insurer's duty to indemnify is dependent on its duty to defend under the eight-corners doctrine. The court held that the duties are distinct and that an insurer may owe a duty to indemnify even when no duty to defend arises, because indemnity depends on facts established and the policy terms. The court affirmed the judgment on the duty to defend, reversed the judgment on the duty to indemnify, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. D.R. Horton waived its argument for an exception to the eight-corners doctrine because it did not raise that argument in the trial court or court of appeals until its second motion for rehearing.
2. The duty to indemnify is distinct from and independent of the duty to defend; an insurer may have a duty to indemnify even when the duty to defend never arises.
3. Summary judgment for Markel on the duty to indemnify was improper because D.R. Horton's evidence raised fact questions regarding Ramirez's work, D.R. Horton's additional-insured status, and potential coverage under the CGL policy.

Questions Presented

1. Whether D.R. Horton preserved its argument that extrinsic evidence should be admitted as an exception to the eight-corners doctrine in determining Markel's duty to defend.
2. Whether the absence of a duty to defend necessarily establishes that Markel had no duty to indemnify D.R. Horton.
3. Whether evidence submitted by D.R. Horton raised fact questions concerning coverage and Markel's duty to indemnify.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded