On Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County
The case involved an insurance-coverage dispute arising from an underlying lawsuit, Bradley v. AEP Texas Central Company, Cause No. 2007-26854 in the 63rd District Court of Val Verde County, Texas. In that case, Weldon Bradley and his wife Ruth sued several defendants, including a company, alleging that Weldon was injured by his exposure to the defendants’ asbestos-containing products and machinery. In their factual allegations, the Bradley plaintiffs did not identify the date Weldon’s injury occurred. The trial court in the Bradley case granted summary judgment in favor of the company and dismissed it from the case. The parties had stipulated that the company incurred $54,706.67 in the attorney’s fees and costs in defending the Bradley case. The company held a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by the appellant company’s predecessor, covering the period. Under the policy’s terms, the appellant had a duty to defend the company against any claims arising out of an occurrence that resulted in bodily injury during the coverage period, even if the allegations were groundless, false, or fraudulent. In response to the Bradley suit, the company demanded reimbursement for its defense costs from the appellant. The trial court in the coverage lawsuit granted traditional summary judgment in favor of the company, denied the appellant’s competing summary-judgment motion, and ordered the appellant to pay the company’s attorney’s fees and costs from the Bradley suit, the coverage suit, and any appeals. The appellate court noted that the allegations themselves, when construed liberally in favor of the insured, were sufficient to state a claim that was potentially within coverage. The appellants in the underlying suit alleged facts that supported an inference of coverage and that were sufficient to permit proof on a trial of the truth of the inference. The allegations in the Bradley petition, when construed liberally in favor of the company, supported the inference that Weldon’s injury potentially occurred during the policy period, and therefore the claim was potentially covered. That was sufficient to trigger the appellant’s duty to defend the suit. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.