Cases

A court of the Western District of Texas denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment request for no coverage and granted the insured physician’s cross-motion as to the duty to defend, but deferred the duty-to-indemnify issue until resolution of the underlying case, rejecting the insurer’s “business enterprise” exclusion argument and holding the insurer must defend the physician in the underlying suit alleging he prescribed controlled substances that enabled a sex- and labor-trafficking venture because, under Texas’s eight-corners rule, the underlying complaint plausibly alleged a provider-patient relationship and the alleged prescribing conduct fell within the policy’s definition of “professional services” under the claims-made professional liability policy,