Black Stallion Enterprises v. Bay & Ocean Marine Towing

Case: 10-30423 Document: 00511223947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 2, 2010
No. 10-30423 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
BLACK STALLION ENTERPRISES,
Plaintiff
v.
BAY & OCEAN MARINE TOWING, LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION;
ET AL,
Defendants
________________________________________________________________________
ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
BAY & OCEAN MARINE TOWING, LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION;
BLOCK ONE MARINE, INCORPORATED.,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:09-CV-4504
Case: 10-30423 Document: 00511223947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2010
No. 10-30423
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from the district court's order granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's only assignment of error is that the district court
failed to properly apply the maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei to the question
of coverage. We review a district court's dismissal on the pleadings de novo.
Guidry v. Am. Pub. Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007).
We note that there is some confusion as to whether the doctrine of
uberrimae fidei takes precedence over state insurance law and under what
circumstances that may occur. See, e.g., Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v.
Durham Auctions, Inc., 585 F.3d 236, 241-42 (5th Cir. 2009); Albany Ins. Co. v.
Anh Thi Kieu, 927 F.2d 882, 886-90 (5th Cir. 1991). However, we find no error
in the district court's application of Louisiana insurance law under the instant
circumstances. First, Plaintiff has failed to distinguish relevant precedent which
applied a comparable state insurance law rather than the doctrine of uberrimae
fidei. See Albany Ins. Co., 585 F.3d at 891-92. Second, Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate how the doctrine is applicable where, as here, the alleged
misrepresentation involved a vessel that both parties stipulate was not even
covered under the relevant policy.
AFFIRMED.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
2