Southern Family Insurance Company v. United States , 476 F. App'x 228 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    MAY 17, 2012
    No. 11-12269
    JOHN LEY
    ________________________
    CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 8:05-cv-02158-JSM-MAP
    SOUTHERN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (May 17, 2012)
    Before HULL, ANDERSON and HIGGINBOTHAM,* Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    _________________
    *Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by
    designation.
    We have had the benefit of oral argument in this case, and have carefully
    considered the briefs of the parties, the relevant cases, and relevant portions of the
    record. After a bench trial, the district court made findings of fact with respect to
    the five factors set out in United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co.,
    
    412 U.S. 401
    , 
    93 S.Ct. 2169
     (1973), including the ultimate finding that the intent
    and motive of the transferor of the funds was a contribution to capital to benefit the
    Florida insurance market, i.e., to encourage private insurance companies to invest
    their capital in the Florida insurance market. The record contains ample evidence
    to support these findings, including the testimony of virtually every witness, most
    of whom were extremely knowledgeable not only with the relevant legal principles,
    but also with the insurance industry. Even if there were some minimal component
    which might be deemed payment for services, the same was negligible, and the
    dominant intent and motivation was clearly the benefit to the public at large as
    found by the district court.
    We cannot conclude that the district court’s findings of fact were clearly
    erroneous.
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-12269

Citation Numbers: 476 F. App'x 228

Judges: Anderson, Higginbotham, Hull, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/17/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024