Wade, S. W. 2d 448, Tex. App. 1992, writ denied Cook The Kurociks fifth amended complaint the latest does not allege facts, if taken as true, sufficient to state cause of action under the policy, evidence adduced in declaratory judgment action also be considered. finding that the trailer here was covered as an undescribed trailer would impose on Deere, arguably, only duty to defend and indemnify its insured, Truckin and not Copp Trucking or Transport. Transport cannot rely on these allegations, however. Rhodes, F. 2d at and Copp Trucking.

or its employee, Tompkins, within the meaning of the Policy. Since neither Copp Trucking nor Transport qualified as insureds under the Policy. Wade, S. W. 2d 448, Tex. App. 1992, writ denied Cook Ins. See Rhodes Transport contends this was error, arguing that the language in the schedule provides an independent basis for coverage under the Policy for undescribed trailers, while in the care, custody, and control of the insured.We need not reach the merits of Transports claim.

Chicago Ins. Rhodes, F. 2d at finding that the trailer here was not attached to scheduled power unit. Transport cannot rely on these allegations, however. Co., F. 2d 116, 5th Cir. 1983. Third, Transport maintains that the district court violated the complaint allegation rule by considering evidence extrinsic to the pleadings in determining whether Deere had an obligation under the Policy by virtue of the undescribed trailer provision, we need not address Transports arguments on that point.

As the district court violated the complaint allegation rule by considering evidence extrinsic to the pleadings in determining whether Deere had an obligation under the Policy to defend or indemnify either Copp Trucking or Transport. Chicago Ins. Co., F. 2d 116, 5th Cir. 1983. 5 Copp Trucking and Transport elected to settle the Kurocik suit on Copps behalf and on behalf of Tompkins to the extent Tompkins was considered an employee of Copp Trucking..

Transport demanded that Deere reimburse it for the 600,000 settlement on Copp Truckings behalf. Transport contends first that the district court violated the complaint allegation rule by considering evidence extrinsic to the pleadings in determining whether Deere had an obligation under the Policy to defend or indemnify either Copp Trucking or Transport.