Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. White Stone Properties, Ltd.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50374 Affirmed ] Judge: JLD , Judge: ECP , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 03/31/2015 [14-50374]

Download PDF
Case: 14-50374 Document: 00512963802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-50374 March 10, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WHITE STONE PROPERTIES LTD., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CV-275 Before DENNIS, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Following a bench trial, White Stone Properties Ltd. (“White Stone”) appeals from a final judgment entered by the district court, holding that Central Mutual Insurance Company (“Central Mutual”) owed no further payment to its insured, White Stone, under the terms of a replacement-cost coverage provision of an insurance policy (“the Policy”). White Stone also appeals from the district court’s holding that White Stone “take nothing” on its counter claims against Central Mutual for (1) a declaratory judgment that Central Mutual owes payments to White Stone pursuant to the Policy; (2) 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-50374 Document: 00512963802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2015 No. 14-50374 breach of contract; (3) breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) violations of the Texas Insurance Code. A careful review of the record in this case, a full consideration of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and a thorough analysis of the district court’s articulate ruling lead us to conclude that the district court’s judgment was correct. Because the district court opinion’s careful analysis thoroughly explains its sound reasons and judgment, we need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the same result. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons assigned by the district court. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?