Filed: Apr. 28, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 28, 2008 No. 07-40283 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk GUILLERMO MUNGIA, ERMINIA MUNGIA Plaintiffs-Appellants v. STATE FARM LLOYDS Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (02-CV-115) Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Guillermo and Erminia Mungia appeal from the district court’s ruling on
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 28, 2008 No. 07-40283 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk GUILLERMO MUNGIA, ERMINIA MUNGIA Plaintiffs-Appellants v. STATE FARM LLOYDS Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (02-CV-115) Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Guillermo and Erminia Mungia appeal from the district court’s ruling on ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 28, 2008
No. 07-40283 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
GUILLERMO MUNGIA, ERMINIA MUNGIA
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
STATE FARM LLOYDS
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(02-CV-115)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Guillermo and Erminia Mungia appeal from the district court’s ruling on
summary judgment that their Texas homeowner’s policy does not provide
coverage for mold damage to their dwelling that arises from an accidental
discharge of water. The Mungias argue that the mold exclusion found in their
policy is not applicable because of an “exclusion repeal” provision. They rely on
the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.,
972
S.W.2d 738 (Tex. 1998). We have recently addressed this identical issue,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 07-40283
concluding that Balandran is inapplicable and that mold damage to the dwelling
is not covered under the policy language at issue here. See Carrizales v. State
Farm Lloyds,
518 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2008). The Mungias’s arguments are thus
foreclosed by our precedent.
AFFIRMED.
2