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

Hollybrook contracted with Carver for cotton processing equipment as part of its operation of a cotton mill. After the equipment repeatedly broke down, Hollybrook filed suit against Carver for breach of contract and redhibition. Hollybrook also sued Carver's primary insurer (Sentry) and its excess insurer (American). Defendants removed to federal court and Hollybrook settled its claims against Carver and Sentry. Hollybrook proceeded against American. On appeal, the court concluded that there was no error in the district court's order granting a new trial where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the submission of the prejudicial information at issue was not harmless, or its determination that the jury's damage award was covered under the applicable insurance policy. However, the court concluded that the district court incorrectly determined that Hollybrook's attorney's fees were not covered by the policy. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hollybrook Cottonseed Processing LLC v. Carver, Inc." on Justia Law

This suit arose out of an insurance policy SWEPCO, a public electric utility serving Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, purchased from Underwriters for coverage associated with the construction of a power plant in Louisiana. On appeal, SWEPCO challenged the district court's order granting Underwriters' motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the district court's order was not a final, appealable order within the meaning of the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. 201-08, or the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1-16. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "Southwestern Elec. Power Co., et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Deputy Arnold and Sheriff Graves, alleging violations of federal and state law after Arnold fatally shot their father while responding to a 911 call that the father was threatening to commit suicide. Plaintiffs also filed suit against ReliaStar to recover $179,000 they allege ReliaStar owes them under the father's accidental death policy. The district court granted Arnold and Grave's motions for summary judgment and granted ReliaStar's motion for summary judgment. The court held that Arnold did not violate the father's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered the father's home without a warrant because he had an objectively reasonable belief that the father would imminently seriously injure himself, and the district court did not err in granting Arnold's motion for summary judgment on the warrantless entry claim because Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity; Arnold is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate the father's constitutional right to be free from excessive force; the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Arnold on the assault and battery claims, the false imprisonment claims, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the district court correctly granted Graves's motion for summary judgment; and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for ReliaStar where the record was replete with factual evidence that ReliaStar relied on in determining that the father's death was not accidental, demonstrating that ReliaStar could have reached its determination without resorting to the conflict of interest at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rice, et al. v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide, holding that defendants initially purchased a valid homeowner's insurance policy from Nationwide, but that subsequent renewals of that policy were void ab initio because they occurred after defendants lost ownership of their home to foreclosure. The court affirmed, concluding that, by renewing their homeowner's policy when they no longer owned their home, defendants made a misstatement of material fact that entitled Nationwide to rescind the policy. View "Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baptist, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against its general-liability insurer, seeking to recover costs in defending a lawsuit brought by a former client. The client asserted that plaintiff improperly designed a building and did not adequately coordinate with the builders during its construction. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the insurer owed no duty to defend plaintiff because the insurance policies unambiguously excluded coverage for professional liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's entry of judgment for the insurer.View "Wisznia Co., Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

First American appealed the district court's judgment regarding FATTIC's liability to First American under certain vessel title insurance policies. The court concluded that the district court did not err in selecting the date of the foreclosure sales as the appropriate date of valuation; it was not error, much less clear error, to find that the Ocean Jewel's value equaled its foreclosure sale price under the circumstances; there was no reversible error in the district court's calculations; and there was no manifest error in finding that First American was not due any penalties under Louisiana law because FATTIC acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "First American Bank v. First American Trans. Title Ins." on Justia Law

The excess insurer filed suit under a theory of subrogation, seeking to recover from the primary insurer the amount that it paid on the insured's behalf to settle excess claims in an underlying lawsuit after the primary insurer had settled its own liability with the underlying plaintiff by paying its policy limit. The district court held that the excess insurer could not maintain the suit because there had been no adjudicated excess judgment against the insured in the underlying case. The court reversed and remanded, holding that no excess judgment is required if the primary insurer's alleged bad faith failure to defend exposed the insured to excess liability and caused the excess settlement. View "RSUI Indemnity Co. v. American States Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Pioneer's efforts to seek insurance coverage under Steadfast's umbrella policy for costs and expenses incurred in cleaning up and remediating some property. Applying Louisiana's choice-of-law rules, the court concluded that Texas law applied because the insurance policy at issue was issued and delivered under Texas insurance statutes. The district court found that Texas and Louisiana law do not conflict on the issue of insurance policy interpretation and applied Louisiana law. Because neither party challenged this determination, the court did the same. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court did not err by holding that the exclusions within the Property Damage exclusion and the Blended Pollution endorsement were applicable, thus precluding coverage for the costs of remediating the Meaux property and containment; the costs of containment were precluded by the clear language of the policy; the costs of remediating the Rutherford property were unavailable due to its inability to allocate remediation costs; the costs of settling the lawsuits were unavailable due to the retained limit; and the costs of plugging the well were precluded by the OIL endorsement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pioneer Exploration, L.L.C. v. Steadfast Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case arose out of the sinking of a vessel owned by Hornbeck while at R&R's shipyard for repairs. R&R's liability insurer, National, filed suit to disclaim liability under its policy. Hornbeck counterclaimed. The district court found that R&R was negligent and that National was liable for the ensuing damages. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that R&R was negligent under bailment law where the vessel was delivered to R&R afloat, R&R had full custody of the vessel, and the vessel sank while under R&R's care; even if the salvage company had been negligent, R&R would remain fully liable because this negligence was a foreseeable consequence of R&R's own negligence; under Rule 13(a), Hornbeck had standing to bring its counterclaim and the district court properly ruled on that claim after deciding R&R's liability; and the district court erred in the amount of damages it awarded and in applying an 18% interest rate. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the entry of judgment and the appropriate assessment of interest on that judgment. View "National Liability & Fire Ins. Co. v. R & R Marine, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

In this diversity case, the court considered whether Mid-Continent was obligated under Texas law to pay for damage caused by one of its insureds, Arrow, when Arrow failed to promptly correct work in the home that it had constructed for plaintiffs and which failed to conform to the requirements of the construction contract into which Arrow and plaintiffs had entered. The court concluded that, consistent with Texas law and considering the Texas Supreme Court's decisions in Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, and Ewing Construction Co. v. Amerisure Insurance Co., Mid-Content has demonstrated that an exclusion from coverage applied and that the insureds have failed to show that an exception to that exclusion applies. The district court committed no error in granting summary judgment to Mid-Content. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Crownover, et al. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co." on Justia Law