Cases

A court of the Eastern District of Texas resolved competing motions for summary judgment regarding the duties to defend and indemnify under primary and excess agri-business policies, holding that injury to a horse is not covered under the primary policy’s “bodily injury” provision that requires injury to a “person;” that although a reasonable interpretation of “property” within the property damage provision could include damage to a horse, the primary policy’s care, custody, or control exclusion applies; that the question of whether a duty to indemnify exists is not yet ripe; and that because the excess policy follows form, it likewise imposes no duty to defend.