Id. at 654. The petition alleged that Pine Oak negligently built the plaintiffs house by, among other things, “constructing] columns that provided inadequate support” and “fail[ing] to properly seal seams.” Id. Pine Oak argued that the complained-of work was performed by subcontractors, triggering the duty to defend. The court held that there was no duty to defend, however, because “[the pleading] alleges that Pine Oak alone is liable for its own actionable conduct.” Id. at 655. Based on Pine Oak Builders, intermediate courts of appeals likewise have limited review to those facts alleged in the petition without speculating as to facts that could have been alleged. See, e.g., AccuFleet, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 322 S.W.3d 264, 273 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); see also Huffhines v. State Farm Lloyds, 167
holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings holding that it could not disregard the express pleadings alleging negligence by specific parties holding that indemnification provision did not expressly state the party was seeking indemnity for its own negligence so as to satisfy express negligence test holding petition alleging negligence was a personal action holding that district courts could consider ftca claims alleging negligence against va doctors because it would not have any effect on benefits