Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Court-appointed receiver brought suit against Wells Fargo for conversion and breach of contract with respect to a cashier's check purchased by W Financial Group that Wells Fargo reaccepted for deposit into an account other than that of the named payee, without the proper endorsement. The district court found Wells Fargo liable for conversion. On appeal, Wells Fargo argued that the district court erred in finding that it converted the check and in rejecting certain defenses. The court held that because Wells Fargo made payment on the cashier's check to CA Houston, an entity that was not entitled to enforce the instrument, Wells Fargo was liable for conversion under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 3.3420. The court also agreed that Wells Fargo was liable for conversion because it deposited the cashier's check without the necessary indorsement. The court further held that Wells Fargo could not rely upon the condition precedent in its Account Agreement to void liability for conversion of the cashier's check; the district court did not err in denying Wells Fargo's in pari delicto defense; and the court need not address the breach of contract issue. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Crescent appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Volvo where the district court held that the contract between Crescent and Volvo compelled the parties to arbitrate their dispute. The court vacated and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss where the district court erred in holding that Volvo's request for a declaratory judgment as to the applicability of 15 U.S.C. 1226 was properly before the court. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Volvo's declaratory judgment action, the presence of this action in Volvo's complaint before the district court could not alter the court's holding that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to hear Volvo's petition to compel arbitration.

This insurance coverage case arose out of an underlying personal injury lawsuit brought by Michael Parr against Gilbane Building Company. Gilbane, a general contractor, sought defense and indemnification from Admiral Insurance Company based on an insurance policy held by Empire Steel Erectors, a subcontractor. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court determined that Admiral owed a duty to defend and indemnify. As a preliminary matter, the court held that Gilbane qualified as an additional insured. The court held that, pursuant to the strict eight-corners rule, Admiral had no duty to defend where the petition did not affirmatively allege any facts implicating the negligence of either Empire or Parr. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Gilbane on the duty to defend. The court held, however, that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Admiral owed Gilbane a duty to indemnify for the cost of its settlement with Parr and the district court's summary judgment on that matter was affirmed.

Amerisure appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling determining that Louisiana law prohibited the consideration of extrinsic evidence to prove mutual mistake; ranking Amerisure as the primary insurer; and allowing another third-party insurer to bring a cross-claim for defense fees. The court held that because the district court erred in refusing to consider extrinsic evidence to prove the theory of mutual mistake, the court reversed and remanded without considering ranking or standing.

Plaintiff's lawsuit arose from defendant's refusal to pay some or all of plaintiff's claims for reimbursement for medical-device procurement and financing services provided in connection with over 2,000 patients insured under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., plans administered by defendant. Plaintiff subsequently appealed a summary judgment for defendant. At issue was whether plaintiff's state-law claims of promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code, 541.051(A) & (B) and 541.061(1) & (2), were preempted by ERISA. The court reversed with respect to plaintiff's promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and Texas Insurance Code claims because these claims were premised on allegations and evidence that plaintiff provided the services in reliance on defendant's representations that it would pay reasonable charges for plaintiff's services. The court affirmed with respect to plaintiff's quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims because these claims depended on plaintiff's assertion that without its services the patients' ERISA plans would have obligated defendant to reimburse a different provider for the same services.

This case arose when plaintiff and defendant created a joint venture where plaintiff loaned the joint venture $75,000,000 under a Loan Agreement which contained an arbitration clause. Defendant did not sign the Loan Agreement individually but did sign a third-party guarantee (Limited Guarantee) for the loan on the same day the Loan Agreement was executed. Plaintiff subsequently sued defendant pursuant to the Limited Guarantee and defendant sought arbitration. The district court denied a motion to compel arbitration because defendant was not a party to any Loan Document. Defendant appealed and the district court denied his motion for a stay pending appeal. Defendant appealed the denial of the stay and plaintiff moved for summary affirmance of the denial of the motion to compel. The court held that there was no automatic stay and that under the circumstances of the case, defendant was not entitled to a stay. Therefore, the motion for summary affirmance was carried with the case.

Defendant appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to its former employee for breach of a stock options contract. Defendant argued that the jury instruction misstated the governing Korean law, that the jury's verdict relied on legally insupportable evidence, and that the district court applied the wrong law when determining attorney's fees. The court held that defendant failed to prove that the district court abused its discretion in excluding a requirement of coercion or intimidation from the jury instructions. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial on damages. Finally, the award of attorney's fees would be permitted under either Texas or Korean law. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

In the Chapter 13 case of appellees, Countrywide sought the recovery of attorney's fees incurred in connection with the bankruptcy as well as a determination that compliance with Federal Bankruptcy Procedure 2016 was not necessary for the recovery of such fees. The bankruptcy court held that Countrywide was not entitled to recover its attorney's fees and determined that there was no justiciable issue to resolve regarding the applicability of Bankruptcy Rule 2016 because Countrywide had already complied with the rule. The district court affirmed. The court held that the bankruptcy court and district court misconstrued the provision of the contract governing the availability of attorney's fees and that Countrywide was entitled to recover the fees sought in its Fee Application. Like the bankruptcy and district courts, however, the court declined to address whether Bankruptcy Rule 2016 applied. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This appeal required the court to determine what effect, if any, a retiree benefits-related provision included in an asset purchase agreement had on the acquiring company's retiree benefits plans governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1000 et seq. The court held that the provision constituted a valid plan amendment. Moreover, the court held that the provision was assumed, not rejected, in bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.

This case arose when Cat Tech sought indemnification from its insurers after Cat Tech damaged several components of a hyrotreating reactor owned by Ergon Refining, Inc. and arbitrators entered an award against Cat Tech for the damage. Insurers subsequently denied the claim, contending, inter alia, that the "your work" exclusion found in the policies precluded coverage for damage to the reactor. The district court found that insurers had no duty to indemnify Cat Tech. The court held that the information contained in the arbitration award was insufficient to properly apply the "your work" exclusion. As such, the court concluded that the district court erred when it relied on the award in granting insurer's summary judgment motion. On remand, the district court should conduct any additional fact-finding necessary to determine whether the damage suffered by Ergon's reactor was limited only to those components upon which Cat Tech worked, or instead included other components unrelated to Cat Tech's operations. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.