Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Executive Corners v. Maryland Ins. Co., 99-2837 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 99-2837 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2837 _ Executive Corners Office Building; * Irvin Galstad, Dr., DDS, Ltd.; John * Mahowald, dba Dacotah Leather * Company; Team Electronics, dba * Electronics Marketing, Inc.; W & L, * Inc., dba Cherished Moments; * Johnston-Miller, Inc., dba Lifestyles; * Ram Enterprises, Inc., dba Hanky Panky * Gift Shoppe and Gallery; Daniel L. * Spiros, dba Service Shoe Shop; Pure * Plus Dry Cleaners, Inc., dba Pure Plus * Cleaners, dba Hour Glas
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-2837 ___________ Executive Corners Office Building; * Irvin Galstad, Dr., DDS, Ltd.; John * Mahowald, dba Dacotah Leather * Company; Team Electronics, dba * Electronics Marketing, Inc.; W & L, * Inc., dba Cherished Moments; * Johnston-Miller, Inc., dba Lifestyles; * Ram Enterprises, Inc., dba Hanky Panky * Gift Shoppe and Gallery; Daniel L. * Spiros, dba Service Shoe Shop; Pure * Plus Dry Cleaners, Inc., dba Pure Plus * Cleaners, dba Hour Glass Cleaners; * Appeal from the United States SMS, Inc., dba The Bottle Shop; Ivan R. * District Court for the District Jensen; JCM, Inc., dba Miller's True * of North Dakota. Value Hardware; Red River Optical, * Inc., dba Duling Optical; Don Lindgren, * [UNPUBLISHED] dba Sorlie Building, 319-323 Demers; * Stan's Communication, Inc., * * Appellants, * * v. * * Maryland Insurance Company, * * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: May 10, 2000 Filed: May 18, 2000 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG, Circuit Judge, and HENDREN,* District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. This diversity-based lawsuit concerns a coverage dispute between the Appellants and Maryland Insurance Company. Contrary to the Appellants' view that the policy provided coverage for sewer and drain backup damage, the district court concluded the policy language excluding coverage was unambiguous and granted the insurance company summary judgment. We review a grant of summary judgment under a well- established standard. Because this is a diversity case, we review de novo questions of state law. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied state law and properly resolved the coverage dispute. Believing that an extended opinion by this court would have no precedential value in this diversity case, we affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. * The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. -2-
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer