Filed: Apr. 01, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20612 _ WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellant, versus HEEDINGTON INSURANCE LIMITED; TEXACO, INC.; TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (1-93-CV-515) _ April 9, 1996 Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After consideration of the briefs and argumen
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-20612 _ WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellant, versus HEEDINGTON INSURANCE LIMITED; TEXACO, INC.; TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (1-93-CV-515) _ April 9, 1996 Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After consideration of the briefs and argument..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-20612 __________________ WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellant, versus HEEDINGTON INSURANCE LIMITED; TEXACO, INC.; TEXACO REFINING AND MARKETING, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants. ______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (1-93-CV-515) ______________________________________________ April 9, 1996 Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* After consideration of the briefs and argument of counsel and relevant portions of the record, we find ourselves essentially in agreement with the reasoning of the district court on the basis of which it denied plaintiff recovery. We do not consider plaintiff- appellant’s argument respecting the $10,000,000-$11,000,000 * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. coverage overlap inasmuch as that issue was not raised in the district court. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
