UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-11237
Summary Calendar
HAROLD BRAMER; JO ANN BRAMER
Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants
VERSUS
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:96-CV-973)
April 15, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Harold and Jo Ann Bramer (“Bramer”), sued Amica Mutual
Insurance Company (“Amica”), seeking a declaration that Amica was
obligated under insurance policies it issued to them to defend and
indemnify them in a suit brought against them by the Watkins, and
to pay for foundation damage. Bramer also sought damages from
Amica for breach of the insurance contracts, breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing , and a declaration that alleged
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
foundation damage was covered under one of the policies. The
district court granted Amica’s motion for summary judgment, denied
those filed by Bramer, and dismissed Bramer’s claim. We affirm.
Watkins purchased a home from Bramer and later sued alleging
that Bramer made misrepresentations concerning the condition of the
home. Watkins alleged negligence, breach of warranty and contract,
gross negligence, fraud and violation of the Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. Bramer called upon Amica to defend and, if
necessary, to pay under its Homeowner’s Policy and its Dwelling
Policy issued to Bramer. Amica declined and this suit followed.
In this court, Bramer alleges that the district court erred in
holding that no “occurrence” was alleged as required by the
homeowner’s policy, no coverage existed for bodily injury because
physical pain was alleged, and holding that no property damage was
alleged. Our thorough review of the record, the briefs of the
parties and the Memorandum Order and Opinion of the trial judge
convinces us that the trial judge was correct in each instance and
we therefore affirm for the reasons given by him.
AFFIRMED.
2