IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________________________________
No. 98-30863
______________________________________
GERALD THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(97-CV-2248-K)
_____________________________________________
June 7, 1999
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this insurance coverage suit, Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald
Thomas appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Defendant-Appellee Life Insurance Company of North America
(“LINA”). Thomas complains that the district court erred in
concluding that the felony exclusion contained in his son Clifford
Smith’s accidental death insurance policy precluded coverage of
Clifford’s death, which resulted from an accident that Clifford
caused while driving under the influence of alcohol and which
resulted in the deaths of three other persons. Relying on
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
inapplicable state law precedent, Thomas —— the named beneficiary
in his son’s policy —— argues that the policy’s felony exclusion is
ambiguous and does not exclude coverage of an insured’s death
resulting from an accident that was caused by the insured’s drunken
driving and resulted in the death of others. Thomas concedes,
however, that such conduct constitutes vehicular homicide, a felony
under Louisiana law.1
We have carefully considered the Memorandum Opinion and Order
of the district court in light of the facts revealed in the summary
judgment record and the legal arguments set forth in counsels’
appellate briefs. Our de novo review of the district court’s grant
of summary judgment dismissing Thomas’s claim against LINA leads us
the same conclusions as those reached by the district court —— and
for essentially the same reasons as expressed in the that court’s
comprehensive opinion.
AFFIRMED.
1
See La. Rev. Stat. 14:32.1(B).
2