August 20, 2021 opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 19-20489, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Ho, Oldham), insurance, Texas Anti-Indemnity Act, standing
    • Certifying question of interpretation of the term “employee” in the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act to the Texas Supreme Court; and holding that district court did not err in declining to dismiss case for lack of standing.
    • The Court noted that the defendant insurer did not need to raise its argument regarding lack of standing via a cross-appeal. While the sustaining of the defendant’s argument on lack of standing would require a substantively different result than affirming the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims–as it would require vacatur of the district court’s judgment on the merits and dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction–the Court held that this case presents “an exception to that general rule” that cross-appeals are required to support modification of a judgment, because it is well-established that district and appellate courts are both obliged to address their subject-matter jurisdiction.
    • The Court then held that the plaintiff crane supplier did have standing to bring a claim for declaratory judgment that it was covered as an additional insured on the insurance policy of the subcontractor that rented a crane from the plaintiff. The same insurer was also the crane supplier’s general CGL carrier, and had paid the plaintiff’s obligation in the underlying suit, though the plaintiff did have to reimburse the insurer because the amounts paid out were within the deductible. The Court held that the plaintiff’s policy language gave ownership of the plaintiff’s claims to the insurer only for “reimbursable” sums–or future incurred losses–and for “reimbursed” sums–those that had already been reimbursed. “In sum, the Maxim Policy does not assign Maxim’s rights to Zurich, so we conclude that Maxim has standing to pursue this claim against Zurich under the Berkel Policy.
    • As to the merits, the Court was faced with the question of whether, in the underlying suit, the injured worker–who was employed by the general contractor on the construction project–is considered an “employee” of the subcontractor under the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act. If he was, then he is subject to the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation, and not able to pursue his claim against the subcontractor and the crane supplier in negligence. Because the Court determined that there was no sufficient guidance on this question in Texas jurisprudence, it certified the following question to the Texas Supreme Court:
      • “Whether the employee exception to the TAIA, Texas Insurance Code § 151.103, allows additional insured coverage when an injured worker brings a personal injury claim against the additional insured (indemnitee), and the worker and the indemnitee are deemed ‘co-employees’ of the indemnitor for purposes of the TWCA.”

Unpublished

  • Edwards v. Mesquite Independent School District, 20-10158, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Hicks, J. (by desig.) (Dennis, Engelhardt, Hicks), Dennis, J., dissenting; Title VII, employment discrimination
    • Affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal of employee substitute teacher’s employment discrimination and retaliation claims against school district defendant.
    • Judge Dennis dissented. “Sonya R. Edwards adequately pleaded that she exhausted all required administrative remedies prior to filing this suit in federal court and thus the district court erred in granting Mesquite Independent School District’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Contrary to the majority’s holding, Edwards’s failure to raise before the district court the specific legal arguments she makes on appeal as to how she exhausted her administrative remedies has not waived her argument that she did, in fact, exhaust them.”
  • Taylor v. Academic Partnerships L.L.C., 20-11205, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Higginson, Engelhardt), Americans with Disabilities Act, employment discrimination
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of claims for failure to provide medical accommodation and for employment discrimination.
  • Hunt v. Lumpkin, 20-20318, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Elrod, Southwick), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing in part as frivolous and dismissing in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction, appeal from interlocutory orders of court regarding prisoner’s suit for injunctive relief.
  • Stout v. Stephens, 20-20324, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Willett), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of prisoner’s suit asserting due process errors in calculation of parole eligibility date.
  • U.S. v. Benson, 20-50755, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Chatham, 20-51026, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Costa, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 108-month sentence for conviction of conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, at least 50 grams of methamphetamine.
  • Morris v. King, 20-60960, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Willett, Ho), § 1983
    • Affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal of § 1983 claims arising from attempt to remove plaintiff from Aldermen Board meeting.
  • U.S. v. Ramirez, 21-10069, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Robbins v. Sam’s East, Inc., 21-20050, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Elrod, Graves), personal injury
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s slip-and-fall premises liability claim.
  • U.S. v. Collier, 21-30013, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Horne, 21-40177, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, compassionate release
    • Vacating denial of motion for compassionate release, and remanding for consideration under United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021).