Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed February 14, 2008.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-00662-CV
____________
GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant
V.
GULF COAST MARINE ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2003-06535A
D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N
I respectfully disagree with the majority=s conclusion that General Star owed Gulf Coast a duty to defend. Specifically, I disagree with the majority=s conclusion that the petition in the underlying lawsuit alleges facts within the scope of coverage of the insurance policy.
The majority is correct that in reviewing a petition under an eight‑corners analysis, we resolve any doubt regarding coverage in favor of the insured. See Nat=l Union Fire Ins., Inc. v. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Tex. 1997). However, this does not mean that we presume coverage in the absence of statements in the petition creating or disavowing coverage. To the contrary, if a pleading does not allege facts that would create coverage under the policy, an insurer is not legally required to defend the suit against its insured. Id. at 141. Stated conversely, when a pleading only alleges facts excluded by the policy, the insurer has no duty to defend. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. McManus, 633 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Tex. 1982). We will not read facts into the pleadings or imagine factual scenarios in order to find covered claims. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d at 142.
A fair reading of the Juniper petition reveals that no claim is made for any asserted damage to the well stub or net protector. All references to damages in the petition occur in context of damage to the well itself. The facts section repeatedly alleges damage to the well: Athe mat of the jackup rig . . . bent the well,@ Aremedial operations were required, including installation of a caisson on the well,@ Athe Gulf Coast mover was warned of potential damage to the well,@ Athe well stub appeared to be leaning plus or minus 5_ to the southwest, which was later confirmed to be the damage to the well described above,@ and Adamage to Plaintiff=s well was already sustained@ (emphasis added). The causes of action section twice claims damage to the wellCAthe PRIDE ARKANSAS striking Plaintiff=s well@ and APlaintiff=s well required repairs, restoration and remediation@Cbut makes no mention of the well stub or net protector. The damages section details restoration expenses that were asserted earlier in the petition in connection with damage to the well. In reviewing the underlying pleadings, the court must focus on the factual allegations that show the origin of the damages rather than the legal theories alleged. Merchs. Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d at 141. Because I do not read Juniper=s petition as factually alleging a claim for damage to the well stub, I would reverse the trial court=s judgment and render judgment in favor of General Star.
/s/ Leslie B. Yates
Justice
Judgment Affirmed and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed February 14, 2008.
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Fowler, and Guzman (Guzman, J., majority).