928 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1991), 90-5304, Yates v. Transamerica Ins. Co., Inc.

Docket Nº:Graphic Productions (90-5304), Intervening
Citation:928 F.2d 199
Party Name:David YATES, d/b/a Excel Technology, Inc., Plaintiff, William E. Wilson and Lillian K. Wilson, Intervening Plaintiffs, Southland Optical Company (90-5305) and Robert Cook, d/b/a
Case Date:March 15, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 199

928 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1991)

David YATES, d/b/a Excel Technology, Inc., Plaintiff,

William E. Wilson and Lillian K. Wilson, Intervening Plaintiffs,

Southland Optical Company (90-5305) and Robert Cook, d/b/a

Graphic Productions (90-5304), Intervening




Nos. 90-5304, 90-5305.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

March 15, 1991

Argued Dec. 3, 1990.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1991.

Leslie Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, Lexington, Ky., for Southland Optical Co.

E. Douglas Stephan (argued), Geralds, Moloney & Jones, Lexington, Ky., for Robert Cook dba Graphic Productions.

Thomas M. Cooper, John McNeill (argued), Landrum & Shouse, Lexington, Ky., for Transamerica Ins. Co., Inc.

Before RYAN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; and JOINER, Senior District Judge. [*]

Page 200

JOINER, Senior District Judge.

This action was filed October 1, 1987, seeking a declaratory judgment that Transamerica Insurance Company, Inc. (TIC), was liable under a casualty insurance contract numbered 18867788, effective March 3, 1983, for judgments against plaintiff David Yates, d/b/a Excel Technology, Inc. (Excel), arising out of a fire caused by Excel's alleged negligent installation of an air conditioner. William E. Wilson and Lillian K. Wilson (hereinafter collectively referred to as Wilson), judgment creditors of Yates, intervened on January 14, 1988. On July 22, 1988, TIC moved for summary judgment against Yates and Wilson. Cross-motions for summary judgment against TIC were filed by Yates and Wilson on August 15, 1988.

Southland Optical Company (SOC) and Robert Cook, d/b/a Graphic Productions, also judgment creditors of Yates, were granted leave to intervene on March 9 and April 18, 1989, respectively. Their claims were made under the same policy referenced in the complaints of Yates and Wilson. On December 7, 1989, the district court ruled on the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TIC, Yates, and Wilson. The district court granted summary judgment for TIC, denied summary judgment for Yates and Wilson, and dismissed the case. Neither Yates nor Wilson have appealed the decision of the district court.

On December 15, 1989, Cook and SOC filed a motion to alter or amend the dismissal, arguing that the district court's ruling on the summary judgment motions between TIC, Yates, and Wilson should not have resulted in dismissal of their claims, and, in the alternative, that the district court's analysis of the summary judgment motions was in error. At the time of this ruling, ongoing discovery had revealed the existence of a subsequent policy numbered 19172448, discussed in more detail below. The district court denied the Cook/SOC motion on January 26, 1990, and Cook and SOC brought the present appeal.


The facts relevant to the present dispute are as follows. Yates purchased Excel early in the spring of 1984. Excel was then insured under a one-year casualty insurance policy numbered 18867788 issued by TIC, with an expiration date of March 4, 1984. On March 8, 1984, Yates contacted David Deaton, the agent with whom Excel's prior owner had dealt, to inform him that he wished to renew the policy. Deaton's agency agreement with TIC gave him authority to "bind coverage"--enter into...

To continue reading