Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, Lp, No. 03-10982.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 381 F.3d 435 |
| Parties | FAIRFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEPHENS MARTIN PAVING, LP; Carrie Bennett, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Roy Edward Bennett, Deceased, and as Next Friend of Lane Edward Bennett, Cody Lee Bennett, and April Anne Bennett, Minors, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 03-10982. |
| Decision Date | 11 August 2004 |
v.
STEPHENS MARTIN PAVING, LP; Carrie Bennett, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Roy Edward Bennett, Deceased, and as
Page 436
David Morgan Pruessner (argued), Jes Alexander, Law Offices of David M. Pruessner, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Charles Clark Self, III (argued), Whitten & Young, Abilene, TX, for Stephens Martin Paving LP.
Michael R. Cooper (argued), Law Office of Michael R. Cooper, Salado, TX, for Carrie Bennett.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas; Sam R. Cummings, Judge.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This diversity case involves an important question of state law which the Texas courts have not resolved. Accordingly, we certify the unresolved question to the Supreme Court of Texas.
CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ART. 5, § 3-C AND RULE 58 OF THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS AND HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:
The style of the case in which certification is made is Fairfield Insurance Co., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP; Carrie Bennett, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Roy Edward Bennett, Deceased, and as Next Friend of Lane Edward Bennett, Cody Lee Bennett, and April Anne Bennett, Minors, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 03-10982, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
In December 2002, Roy Bennett ("Deceased"), an employee of Stephens Martin Paving ("Stephens"), was killed when a broom machine he was operating overturned. Fairfield Insurance Company ("Fairfield") is Stephens's insurance carrier for both workers' compensation and employer liability coverage. Fairfield, to this day, provides workers' compensation benefits to Carrie Bennett ("Bennett"), the Deceased's wife.
In January 2003, Bennett filed suit against Stephens claiming gross negligence in the death of her husband and seeking only punitive damages. Stephens
Page 437
requested that Fairfield defend against this suit. Fairfield initially defended, but reserved the right to deny indemnification and costs of the defense. Thereafter, Fairfield filed the present action in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Stephens....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairfield Ins. v. Stephens Martin Paving, No. 04-0728.
...an award for punitive damages imposed on its insured because of gross negligence?" Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 381 F.3d 435, 437 (5th Cir.2004). Pursuant to article V, section 3-c of the Texas Constitution and rule 58.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we ans......
-
Daimlerchrysler Insurance Company v. Apple, No. 01-05-01115-CV (Tex. App. 10/25/2007), No. 01-05-01115-CV.
...of punitive damages has been raised in two cases pending before the supreme court. See Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, L.P., 381 F.3d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (petition for certified question accepted, Aug. 27, 2004); Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co.,......
-
Mullins v. Martinez R.O.W., LLC, NO. 01–15–00152–CV
...for punitive damages on its insured because of gross negligence. Id. at 654 (citing Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 381 F.3d 435, 437 (5th Cir.2004) ). The Supreme Court concluded that such coverage was not against public policy and indemnification was available under the ......
-
Fairfield Ins. v. Stephens Martin Paving, No. 04-0728.
...an award for punitive damages imposed on its insured because of gross negligence?" Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 381 F.3d 435, 437 (5th Cir.2004). Pursuant to article V, section 3-c of the Texas Constitution and rule 58.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we ans......
-
Daimlerchrysler Insurance Company v. Apple, No. 01-05-01115-CV (Tex. App. 10/25/2007), No. 01-05-01115-CV.
...of punitive damages has been raised in two cases pending before the supreme court. See Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, L.P., 381 F.3d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (petition for certified question accepted, Aug. 27, 2004); Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co.,......
-
Mullins v. Martinez R.O.W., LLC, NO. 01–15–00152–CV
...for punitive damages on its insured because of gross negligence. Id. at 654 (citing Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 381 F.3d 435, 437 (5th Cir.2004) ). The Supreme Court concluded that such coverage was not against public policy and indemnification was available under the ......