Cmercl Underwriters v. Mobil Oil Corp

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20427
COMMERCIAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee
VERSUS
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION; ET AL
Defendants
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION; MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY INC
Defendants - Counter Claimants - Appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
H-99-CV-4155
March 21, 2002
Before ALDISERT*, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
*
Circuit Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting
by designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
1
The appellants, Mobil Oil Corporation and Mobil Chemical
Company, Inc., (“Mobil”), appeal from the district court’s final
judgment entered on March 15, 2001. Mobil contends the district
court erred when it granted Commercial Underwriters Insurance
Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Mobil’s
counterclaim.
The critical issue presented by this appeal is whether the
“strict” notice standard should be applied to a notice provision in
a claims-made policy when an additional insured such as Mobil seeks
insurance coverage.1 The district court’s February 15, 2001 order
explains, in a very thorough fashion, why our Matador holding
extends to an additional insured such as Mobil. We therefore
affirm for essentially the same reasons stated by the district
court in its February 15, 2001 order.
AFFIRMED.
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
In Matador Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins.
Co., 174 F.3d 653, 658-660 (5th Cir. 1999), we determined that the
“strict” notice standard applies to notice provisions in claims-
made policies when insurance coverage is sought by the named
insured.
2