Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The insurer, Utica National Insurance Co., argues that the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s judgment that it had a duty to defend and to indemnify its insured, a doctors’ association, against a claim filed by patients who were injured by the administration of contaminated anesthetics. The insurer relies on a provision in its policy excluding coverage for any “[b]odily injury . . . due to rendering or failure to render any professional service.” HOLDING:The court affirms that part of the court of appeals’ judgment holding that Utica had a duty to defend the case. Because the court disagrees with the court of appeals that this record established Utica’s indemnity obligation as a matter of law, the court reverses that part of the court of appeals’ judgment and remand this case to the trial court to determine Utica’s indemnity obligation. The policy language supports the conclusion that the exclusion can be reasonably read to preclude coverage only when the plaintiff’s injury is caused by the breach of a professional standard of care. The policy excludes injury “due to” the rendition of professional services. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association and American Indemnity’s argument that bodily injury “due to” professional services requires more than simple cause-in-fact is supported by other policy exclusions which appear to be drawn more broadly, excluding harm “arising out of” conduct instead of “due to” that conduct. For example, the policy excludes bodily injury “arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge . . . of pollutants” and bodily injury “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment” of an automobile. The court finds that the different wording in these exclusions is significant. This court has held that “arise out of” means that there is simply a “causal connection or relation,” Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. 1999), which is interpreted to mean that there is but-for causation, though not necessarily direct or proximate causation. Since the policy used different wording � “arising out of” v. “due to” in parallel exclusions � the court concludes that the phrases should have different meanings in the context of this policy. The most reasonable conclusion is that “due to” requires a more direct type of causation that could tie the insured’s liability to the manner in which the services were performed. The court rejects Utica’s argument that the professional services rendered after the alleged negligent storage relieved it of the duty to defend. The court concludes that TPCIGA and American Indemnity have more than met their burden to show that their interpretation of the exclusionary provision was reasonable. If the factfinder determines that the center breached both professional and non-professional standards of care by failing to properly supervise Thomas and by exposing the plaintiffs to contaminated anesthetics, then the covered and excluded events would have concurrently caused the harm the plaintiffs suffered, and the exclusion would apply. If, however, the professional services were rendered with due care, then the exclusion would not apply. OPINION:Phillips, C.J.; O’Neill, Jefferson, Schneider, Smith, Wainwright and Brister, JJ., join. Hecht, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Owen, J., joins.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.