After the Texas Supreme Court answered certified questions recognizing a limited exception to the eight-corners rule, but finding it did not apply to the facts at issue, the Fifth Circuit resolved the remainder of the duty to defend dispute, finding exclusions applicable to property damage to "that particular part" of property the insured was "performing operations" or which "must be restored or replaced because 'your work' was incorrectly performed on it" did not apply to preclude coverage for all damage alleged where damage to the Edwards Acquirer was alleged in addition to the damaged well.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login