The court grappled with whether defendants named in the underlying case were "additional insureds" under the policy. Colony Ins. Co. v. Price, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38952 (N.D. Texas March 21, 2013).

   Colony insured Tommy Sinclair under a CGL policy. Sinclair operated a nightclub. A patron was assaulted outside the club and died from his injuries. The patron's estate filed the underlying suit against several defendants, including Marty Price, Sinclair's attorney, Mustang Town Property LP, and T.O.M. GP, LLC. Mustang and T.O.M. were entities formed by Price. Price, Mustang and T.O.M. claimed they were additional insureds under Colony's policy although they were not named as such. 

   The policy defined as additional insureds Sinclair's employees and any organization that Sinclair acquired or formed, other than a partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company, over which Sinclair maintained ownership or a majority interest. 

   Colony moved for summary judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify these purported additional insureds. The court relied on the eight-corners rule applicable in Texas to determine whether the parties were insureds. 

   First, there was no factual allegation in the underlying complaint that Price was Sinclair's employee. The complaint only alleged that Price was Sinclair's attorney and that he acted on Sinclair's behalf.

   Further, the complaint also failed to allege Mustang and T.O.M. were Sinclair's employees or otherwise covered as additional insureds. Although defendants maintained that Mustang and T.O.M. were Sinclair's employees, they pointed to no specific allegation for support. They also failed to explain how a business entity could be an "employee" under the policy.

   Therefore, the factual allegations in the underlying suit were insufficient to trigger Colony's duty to defend Price, Mustang, or T.O.M. because they did not qualify as additional insureds.

   Whether there was a duty to indemnify these defendants was deferred until facts were developed in the underlying case. If appeared doubtful that these defendants could be additional insureds, but it was prudent to defer a ruling on the duty to indemnify until the matter was ripe.