American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens

Fifth Circuit

American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens

164 F.3d 956, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1043, 1999 WL 6670

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 25, 1999

Docket96-20192

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 F.3d 956 (American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens, 164 F.3d 956, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1043, 1999 WL 6670 (5th Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our original opinion, American Home As surance Co. v. Stephens, 130 F.3d 123 (5th Cir.1997). In that opinion* we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Home Assurance Company, concluding that the provision in the insurance policy, limiting coverage for a therapist’s non-sexual misconduct because unrelated sexual misconduct occurred in the course of professional treatment, was against public policy. 1 Judge Reavley dissented, being persuaded that Texas courts would not find the insurance provision to be contrary to public policy. 2

On panel rehearing, we withdrew our prior opinion and certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas:

Whether it is against public policy for an insurer to limit coverage for a therapist’s non-sexual misconduct because sexual misconduct is alleged to have occurred in the same or related course of professional treatment, even though sexual misconduct is immaterial to the non-sexual misconduct claims asserted. 3

The Supreme Court of Texas accepted our certification and answered the certified question in the negative,' concluding that Judge Reavley correctly applied Texas law in his dissent to the original panel opinion. 4 Therefore,, in this diversity jurisdiction action, being informed that the Supreme Court of Texas would not find the insurance provision before us to be contrary to public policy, and because the other claims of alleged error are without merit, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. Id. at 126-28.

2

. Id. at 128-30 (Reavley, J., dissenting).

3

. American Home Assurance Co. v. Stepfans, 140 F.3d 617 (5th Cir.1998) (panel rehearing).

4

. American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens, No. 98-0396, 1998 WL 831250 (Tex. Dec.3,1998) (per curiam).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our original opinion, American Home As surance Co. v. Stephens, 130 F.3d 123 (5th Cir.1997). In that opinion* we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Home Assurance Company, concluding that the provision in the insurance policy, limiting coverage for a therapist’s non-sexual misconduct because unrelated sexual misconduct occurred in the course of professional treatment, was against public policy. 1 Judge Reavley dissented, being persuaded that Texas courts would not find the insurance provision to be contrary to public policy. 2

On panel rehearing, we withdrew our prior opinion and certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas:

Whether it is against public policy for an insurer to limit coverage for a therapist’s non-sexual misconduct because sexual misconduct is alleged to have occurred in the same or related course of professional treatment, even though sexual misconduct is immaterial to the non-sexual misconduct claims asserted. 3

The Supreme Court of Texas accepted our certification and answered the certified question in the negative,' concluding that Judge Reavley correctly applied Texas law in his dissent to the original panel opinion. 4 Therefore,, in this diversity jurisdiction action, being informed that the Supreme Court of Texas would not find the insurance provision before us to be contrary to public policy, and because the other claims of alleged error are without merit, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. Id. at 126-28.

2

. Id. at 128-30 (Reavley, J., dissenting).

3

. American Home Assurance Co. v. Stepfans, 140 F.3d 617 (5th Cir.1998) (panel rehearing).

4

. American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens, No. 98-0396, 1998 WL 831250 (Tex. Dec.3,1998) (per curiam).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 F.3d 956, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1043, 1999 WL 6670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-home-assurance-co-v-stephens-ca5-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack