UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-20687
Summary Calendar
_____________________
SPHERE DRAKE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
D. S. STERLING PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
D. S. STERLING PROPERTIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(95-CV-4810)
_________________________________________________________________
April 29, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sphere Drake Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment
action against its insured, D. S. Sterling Properties, Inc.,
claiming that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Sterling
in a state court wrongful death action by the mother of a tenant
killed by another tenant in an apartment complex owned by Sterling.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
The district court granted summary judgment for Sphere Drake; that
judgment became final when the coverage issues were severed from
the remaining issues.
Sterling contends that (1) Sphere Drake is not entitled to
enforce the insurance contract’s coverage exclusions because its
violations of the surplus-lines requirements of the Texas Insurance
Code disqualified it from being an eligible surplus-lines insurer;
(2) even if Sphere Drake is an eligible surplus-lines insurer, the
coverage exclusions for assault and battery and punitive damages
are unenforceable; and (3) the district court erred by granting
summary judgment on issues Sphere Drake did not address until its
reply to Sterling’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
Pursuant to our de novo review, we AFFIRM for essentially the
reasons stated by the district court. Sphere Drake Ins. Co. v. D.
S. Sterling Properties, Inc., et al., No. H-95-4810 (S.D. Tex. May
7, 1996). Sterling’s contentions regarding procedural
irregularities in the summary judgment proceedings are without
merit.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -