Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In an action by a group of insurers claiming that defendant-insurer owed plaintiffs a duty to defend an underlying construction suit, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the underlying complaint's allegations did not clearly and unambiguously fall outside the scope of the policy's coverage. However, the district court's order denying plaintiffs defense costs in the underlying suit is reversed where plaintiffs satisfied the "common obligation" and "compulsory payment" requirements for a contribution claim under Texas law.
Filed January 4, 2010
Opinion by Judge Prado