United States Fifth Circuit

In an action by a group of insurers claiming that defendant-insurer owed plaintiffs a duty to defend an underlying construction suit, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the underlying complaint's allegations did not clearly and unambiguously fall outside the scope of the policy's coverage. However, the district court's order denying plaintiffs defense costs in the underlying suit is reversed where plaintiffs satisfied the "common obligation" and "compulsory payment" requirements for a contribution claim under Texas law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/05/2010
• Published 01/05/2010

Judges

• PRADO, Circuit Judge:, Before JOLLY, DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Brian S. Martin (argued) and Kevin Frank Risley, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Trinity Universal Ins. Co., Utica Nat. Ins. and Nat. American Ins. Co., Aaron Linzy Mitchell (argued) and Stephen A. Melendi, Tollefson, Bradley, Ball & Mitchell, Dallas, TX, for Employers Mut. Cas. Co., Levon G. Hovnatanian and Christopher Weldon Martin, Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Continental Cas. Co., Amicus Curiae., Lee Howard Shidlofsky, Visser Shidlofsky, L.L.P., Austin, TX, pro se, Amicus Curiae., Dennis D. Gibson, Gibson, McClure, Wallace & Daniels, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, pro se, Amicus Curiae., Craig Lee Reese, Fletcher, Farley, Shipman & Salinas, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, pro se, Amicus Curiae., Augustus William Arnold, III, A. William Arnold, III & Associates, Dallas, TX, pro se, Amicus Curiae., David Morgan Pruessner (argued) and Jes Alexander, Law Offices of David M. Pruessner, Dallas, TX, for Amerisure Ins. Co., Amicus Curiae.