Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. v. Okla. Sur. Co.
Citation | 903 F.3d 435 |
Decision Date | 29 August 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-20195,16-20195 |
Parties | LYDA SWINERTON BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. OKLAHOMA SURETY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Joseph L. Oliva, Morris, Charles L. Fanning, Esq., Sullivan & Lemkul, San Diego, CA, John L. Grayson, Cokinos Young, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Richard Brent Cooper, Esq., Timothy Micah Dortch, Diana L. Faust, Cooper & Scully, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
We withdraw our prior opinion, Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. v. Oklahoma Surety Co. , 877 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2017), and substitute the following in light of the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion on rehearing in USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca , 545 S.W.3d 479 (2018).
This case involves several issues of Texas law relating to an insurer’s duty to defend and the damages that an insured may recover when an insurer breaches that duty. The district court, after disposing of much of the case through a series of partial summary judgment rulings and conducting a bench trial on one remaining claim, issued a final judgment that largely (though not entirely) favored the insured. The insurer and the insured now cross-appeal from that judgment. We AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.
Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. ("LSB") is a Texas-based general contractor. In November 2003, LSB was hired to build a ten-story office building in College Station, Texas. LSB, in turn, hired numerous subcontractors, among them A.D. Willis Company, Inc. ("Willis"). The subcontract agreement between LSB and Willis, which dates to April 2005, defined the scope of Willis’ work as "ROOFING, ORNAMENTAL METAL, METAL WALL PANELS, and ROUGH CARPENTRY." The subcontract required Willis to maintain a general liability insurance policy designating LSB as an additional insured with respect to liabilities arising out of Willis’ work under the subcontract. The subcontract also contained an indemnification provision, which read:
Before returning the signed subcontract to LSB, Willis’ president made several handwritten changes to the document, including striking out the portion of the indemnification provision indicated above. LSB did not countersign the subcontract, and there is no evidence in the record that LSB noticed or objected to Willis’ alterations.
Willis subsequently obtained a commercial general liability insurance policy from Oklahoma Surety Company ("OSC") with a policy period of February 1, 2006 to February 1, 2007. The OSC Policy identified Willis as the "Named Insured" and as a "COMMERCIAL ROOFING CONTRACTOR." The policy provided that:
[OSC] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which this insurance applies. [OSC] will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking those damages. However, [OSC] will have no duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking damages for "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which this insurance does not apply. [OSC] may, at [its] discretion, investigate any "occurrence" and settle any claim or "suit" that may result.
The policy contained an endorsement naming "Lyda Builders & its parent & affiliated companies" as additional insureds, "but only with respect to liability directly attributable to [Willis’] performance of ‘[Willis’] work’ for [LSB and LSB’s parent and affiliates]." Elsewhere, the policy defined Willis’ "work" as "[w]ork or operations performed by [Willis] or on [its] behalf" and "[m]aterials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations." The endorsement also stated that it applied "only when [Willis] ha[s] agreed by written ‘insured contract’ to designate [LSB and its parents and affiliates] as an additional insured subject to all provisions and limitations of this policy." The term "insured contract" was defined to include The term "property damage" was defined as:
In January 2005, the owner of the College Station project assigned its interest in the contract with LSB to Adam Development Properties, L.P. ("ADP"). On February 12, 2008, ADP filed an original petition in Texas state court against LSB and LSB’s parent company. That petition sought damages against LSB for breach of contract and alleged, in pertinent part, that:
In April 2011, LSB filed third-party petitions against various companies, including Willis. On November 17, 2011, ADP filed its first amended petition, the factual allegations of which were essentially the same as those in the original petition. In addition to the breach of contract claim, the first amended petition added claims against LSB for negligence and misrepresentation. The negligence claim asserted that LSB breached its duty to "exercise ordinary care in connection with the project, including but not limited to the duty to exercise ordinary care in the supervision of its subcontractors," thereby "caus[ing] property damage separate and apart from its scope of work under the contract documents." The first amended petition referred to Willis as a third-party defendant, but did not expressly identify it as a subcontractor.
On October 31, 2012, ADP filed a second amended petition. That petition was very similar to the previous petitions. This time, however, ADP identified Willis (and others) as "Third-Party Defendants" and incorporated specific references to them throughout the pleading. In particular, the second amended petition alleged:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Acadia Ins. Co.
...are known or discovered to be untrue, an insurer that has contracted to defend must do so. See Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. v. Okla. Sur. Co. , 903 F.3d 435, 447 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Zurich Am. Ins. Co. , 268 S.W.3d at 491 ; Heyden Newport Chem. Corp. v. S. Gen. Ins. Co. , 387 S.W.2d 22, 24 (......
-
De Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Ltd. P'ship
... ... Dwoskin & Associates, Inc., Defendants - Appellees. Laura E. Gmez; Ian ... ...
-
Morel v. U.S. Xpress, Inc.
...May 1, 2020) (quoting In re Cajun Elec. Power Co-op, Inc., 791 F.2d 353, 359 (5th Cir. 1986)). 63. Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. v. Oklahoma Surety Co., 903 F.3d 435, 445-46 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W. 3d 632, 635 (Tex. 2007)) (emphasis in original). 64. R.......
-
Seneca Specialty Ins. Co. v. Chappell
... ... U ... S ... A ... , Inc ., v ... Jackson , __U.S.__, 139 S.Ct ... Century Sur. Co ... v. Seidel , 893 F.3d 328, 333 (5th ... contracted to defend must do so. Lyda Swinerton Builders, ... Inc. v. Okla. Sur ... ...
-
CHAPTER § 5.02 Basic Insurance Concepts
...fall within the risk covered by the policy") (internal marks omitted). Fifth Circuit: Lyda Swinerton Builders, Inc. v. Okla. Sur. Co., 903 F.3d 435, 447 (5th Cir. 2018) ("The truth or falsity of the allegations is immaterial: even if the allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent the ......