OneBeacon Insurance Company v. Bay & Ocean Marine Towing, LLC, et al

Filing 920100902

Opinion

Case: 10-30423

Document: 00511223947

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
September 2, 2010 N o . 10-30423 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

B L A C K STALLION ENTERPRISES,

Plaintiff v. B A Y & OCEAN MARINE TOWING, LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION; E T AL,

Defendants ________________________________________________________________________ O N E B E A C O N INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellant v. B A Y & OCEAN MARINE TOWING, LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION; B L O C K ONE MARINE, INCORPORATED.,

Defendants - Appellees

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Louisiana U S D C No. 2:09-CV-4504

Case: 10-30423

Document: 00511223947

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

No. 10-30423 B e fo r e REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T h is is an appeal from the district court's order granting Defendants' m o t io n to dismiss. Plaintiff's only assignment of error is that the district court fa ile d to properly apply the maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei to the question o f coverage. We review a district court's dismissal on the pleadings de novo. Guidry v. Am. Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007). W e note that there is some confusion as to whether the doctrine of u b e r r i m a e fidei takes precedence over state insurance law and under what c ir c u m s t a n c e s that may occur. See, e.g., Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v. D u r h a m Auctions, Inc., 585 F.3d 236, 241-42 (5th Cir. 2009); Albany Ins. Co. v. A n h Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 882, 886-90 (5th Cir. 1991). However, we find no error in the district court's application of Louisiana insurance law under the instant c ir c u m s t a n c e s . First, Plaintiff has failed to distinguish relevant precedent which a p p lie d a comparable state insurance law rather than the doctrine of uberrimae fid e i. See Albany Ins. Co., 585 F.3d at 891-92. Second, Plaintiff has failed to d e m o n s t r a t e how the doctrine is applicable where, as here, the alleged m is r e p r e s e n t a t io n involved a vessel that both parties stipulate was not even c o v e r e d under the relevant policy. A F F IR M E D .

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

2