232 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 2000), 99-1200, Coregis Ins. Co. v. Law Offices of Phillip S. Decaro, P.C.
|Docket Nº:||99-1200, 99-1208.|
|Citation:||232 F.3d 900|
|Party Name:||COREGIS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. LAW OFFICES OF PHILLIP S. DECARO, P.C., a Colorado corporation, and Phillip S. Decaro, a Colorado resident, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||September 22, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA10 Rule 36.3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
2000 CJ C.A.R. 149, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 5661
Before LUCERO, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and ALLEY, Senior District Judge. [**]
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
Defendants Law Offices of Phillip S. DeCaro, P.C. and Phillip S. DeCaro (collectively "DeCaro") appeal a summary judgment entered against them in a declaratory judgment action concerning the duty of Plaintiff Coregis Insurance Company ("Coregis") to defend and indemnify DeCaro under a legal malpractice insurance policy. Coregis cross-appeals the district court's denial of a motion for further relief based on the declaratory judgment. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse the grant of summary judgment to Coregis.
Standard of Review
We review a summary judgment decision de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court. DeBoard v. Sunshine Mining & Ref. Co., 208 F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir.2000); Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 155 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1039 (1999). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
Factual and Procedural Background
Coregis brought suit under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 2201, to obtain a determination that its insurance policy did not cover claims asserted against DeCaro in a state court action in New Mexico. Coregis claimed that it had no duty to defend or indemnify DeCaro from any of fifteen third-party claims brought by Edmund Healy and Trudy Valerio Healy arising from their dealings with DeCaro concerning a real estate development. Thirteen of the claims related to DeCaro's actions as a landowner/developer and two related to legal services that DeCaro had provided to Edmund Healy. On Coregis' motion for summary judgment, the district court ruled in Coregis' favor and entered a declaratory judgment that no coverage exists under the policy for any of the Healys' claims. DeCaro does not appeal the district court's decision regarding the landowner/developer claims. DeCaro challenges only the determination that the Healys' malpractice claims are not covered due to "Exclusion E" of the policy. 1
After Coregis obtained the summary ruling, it moved the district court for further relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202. Coregis sought reimbursement for defense costs it had expended on DeCaro's behalf in the New Mexico case under a reservation of rights. The district court denied the motion without a hearing because other insurance carriers who remained responsible for...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP