In 2005, Stephen Seffel, insured under a farm liability policy written by Hochheim Prairie Casualty Ins. Co. (Hochheim), was sued. During the course of litigation, Seffel died and the action continued on behalf of Seffel's estate. Hochheim denied that it owed a duty to defend and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by Hochheim and Seffel's Estate (Seffel). When a trial court ruled in favor of Seffel, Hochheim appealed.

Seffel was sued by the family of Margaret Sundby. Both Sundby and Seffel were residents of an assisted care facility. Seffel, who was placed in the facility because of his suffering from (diagnosed) dementia and Alzheimer's, had, twice, knocked down Sundby. The knockdowns occur within three days of each other. Sundby later died from the injuries and her family filed suit. The Sundby family alleged that Seffel assaulted Sundby and was responsible for her injuries and death. Hochheim denied coverage based on that part of the allegations.

The appellate court focused on the two parts of Hochheims reasserted arguments. One, that the trial court's reliance on extrinsic evidence was improper and two, that no defense obligation existed because assault is an intentional act.

The higher court agreed with Hochheim's first assertion. The lower court did consider expert testimony that Seffel suffered from diminished capacity and was unable to comprehend his actions against Sundby. In the higher court's opinion, consideration of the testimony violated application of the Eight Corners Rule. Specifically, the question of Seffel's mental state technically fell outside of the proceeding's eight corners (the four corners of the insurance policy and the four corners of the original pleading) and was not valid for review.

The appellate court then took up the question of whether a defense obligation was owed Seffel. The court focused on the total allegations that consisted of Seffel's diagnosis of dementia, Seffel lost the ability to handle himself safely and to handle his financial responsibilities, Seffel (and later his estate) was appointed a guardian by court order and that Seffel, twice, knocked Sundby down.

The higher court concluded that the allegations raised a question of coverage, specifically that Seffel's actions could be deemed unintentionally and, therefore, eligible for coverage. The court (while agreeing that the lower court should not have considered the expert testimony) affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Seffel and against Hochheim.

Hochheim Prairie Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Charles Appleby, as Exec. of the Estate of Stephen D. Seffel, Deceased, Appellee. CtApp of Texas, San Antonio No. 04-07-00028-CV Filed Jled Jan 16, 2008. Affirmed. Westlaw 255 S.W. 3d. 146