Legal Definitions - allegations-of-the-complaint rule

The allegations-of-the-complaint rule, also widely known as the eight-corners rule, is a fundamental principle in insurance law used by courts to determine whether an insurance company has a duty to defend its policyholder against a lawsuit. Under this rule, the court looks *only* at two documents:

• The "four corners" of the plaintiff's complaint (the legal document initiating the lawsuit, which contains the specific claims and allegations against the policyholder).
• The "four corners" of the insurance policy itself (the contract outlining the scope of coverage, exclusions, and the insurer's duties).

The court compares the allegations made in the complaint with the coverage provisions and exclusions in the insurance policy. If the allegations, even if they are ultimately proven false or groundless, potentially fall within the scope of coverage provided by the policy, then the insurer generally has a duty to defend the policyholder. Crucially, the court does not consider any outside evidence or facts not contained within these two documents when making this initial determination regarding the duty to defend.

Here are some examples illustrating how this rule applies:

• Example 1: Business Liability

  A small landscaping company, "GreenThumb Gardens," has a commercial general liability insurance policy. A client sues GreenThumb, alleging that negligent tree trimming caused a large branch to fall and damage their garage roof. The client's complaint specifically states that the damage resulted from "GreenThumb's employees improperly cutting a tree limb." GreenThumb notifies its insurer, "Evergreen Insurance."

  How it illustrates the rule: Evergreen Insurance will apply the allegations-of-the-complaint rule. It will review *only* the specific allegations in the client's lawsuit (that the damage was due to negligent tree trimming) and compare them against the terms of GreenThumb's commercial liability policy. If the policy covers property damage caused by negligence in landscaping operations, Evergreen will likely have a duty to defend GreenThumb. This holds true even if GreenThumb believes the allegations are false, or that the branch fell due to a natural cause unrelated to their work. The insurer will not consider external evidence, such as GreenThumb's work logs or photographs of the tree taken after the incident, at this stage of determining the duty to defend.

• Example 2: Homeowner's Personal Injury

  Maria is sued by a delivery driver who slipped and fell on her front porch. The driver's complaint alleges that Maria "failed to maintain a safe walkway, specifically by allowing a loose step to remain unrepaired, causing severe injury." Maria has a homeowner's insurance policy with "SafeHaven Insurance."

  How it illustrates the rule: SafeHaven Insurance will use the allegations-of-the-complaint rule. They will examine *only* the specific claim in the driver's lawsuit (that Maria's negligence in maintaining her porch caused the fall and injuries) and compare it to the personal liability coverage section of Maria's homeowner's policy. If the policy covers bodily injury to third parties due to negligence on the insured's property, SafeHaven will likely assume the duty to defend Maria. This determination is made regardless of whether Maria had recently inspected the step or if the driver was wearing inappropriate footwear. SafeHaven will not consider photos of the porch taken by Maria or her testimony about recent repairs at this initial stage.

• Example 3: Professional Malpractice

  Dr. Alex Lee, a chiropractor, is sued by a patient who alleges "professional negligence resulting in worsened back pain and prolonged recovery" after a series of adjustments. Dr. Lee has a professional liability (malpractice) insurance policy with "GuardianPro Insurance."

  How it illustrates the rule: GuardianPro Insurance will apply the allegations-of-the-complaint rule. They will look *only* at the patient's complaint, which specifically alleges "professional negligence" and "worsened injury." They will then compare these allegations to the coverage provisions of Dr. Lee's professional liability policy. If the policy covers claims of professional negligence and resulting bodily injury, GuardianPro will likely have a duty to defend Dr. Lee. This is true even if Dr. Lee has detailed patient records showing he followed all standard protocols and believes the patient's claim is unfounded. GuardianPro will not consider Dr. Lee's treatment notes or expert opinions on the efficacy of his treatment at this initial stage of determining the duty to defend.