Continental Savings Association v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company

Fifth Circuit

Continental Savings Association v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company

768 F.2d 89, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 1985

Docket84-1382

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 768 F.2d 89 (Continental Savings Association v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company) 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

Continental Savings Association v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 768 F.2d 89, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21184 (5th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion June 17, 1985, 5 Cir., 1985, 762 F.2d 1239)

Before GOLDBERG, RUBIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In the original panel opinion we held that Continental Savings Association (Continental), as insured, was not required to file a proof of loss under section 4 of the Conditions and Limitations Section of the bond in order to recover costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending against liability for a loss or claim. 762 F.2d 1239, 1244. For the first time, USF & G now argues that in order for a claim or loss to be “a valid and collectible loss” under the bond for purposes of paragraph C, the insured must file a timely proof of loss under Section 4 and the attending discovery of loss rider to that section. So arguing, USF & G attempts to tie the notice of proof of loss provision to the notice of suit provision. We express no opinion on this issue as the argument, presented for the first time on rehearing, comes too late. See, e.g., Wells v. Rushing, 760 F.2d 660, 661 (5th Cir.1985). Rehearing is therefore denied on this point.

In point IV of its petition for rehearing, USF & G merely restates the argument that it made on the original hearing and that was rejected in the original panel opinion. 762 F.2d at 1244-45. The argument has, however, brought to our attention a misstatement of the effect of the bond’s pro rata provision discussed there. Accordingly, the fourth sentence of the next to last paragraph of the original opinion, 762 F.2d at 1245, is amended to state as follows:

In that case, the fees and costs would be prorated in proportion as the amount actually recovered exceeds the amount of the bond.

The petition for rehearing is therefore granted to that extent.

All other grounds for rehearing being without merit, the petition is in all other respects DENIED.

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion June 17, 1985, 5 Cir., 1985, 762 F.2d 1239)

Before GOLDBERG, RUBIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In the original panel opinion we held that Continental Savings Association (Continental), as insured, was not required to file a proof of loss under section 4 of the Conditions and Limitations Section of the bond in order to recover costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending against liability for a loss or claim. 762 F.2d 1239, 1244. For the first time, USF & G now argues that in order for a claim or loss to be “a valid and collectible loss” under the bond for purposes of paragraph C, the insured must file a timely proof of loss under Section 4 and the attending discovery of loss rider to that section. So arguing, USF & G attempts to tie the notice of proof of loss provision to the notice of suit provision. We express no opinion on this issue as the argument, presented for the first time on rehearing, comes too late. See, e.g., Wells v. Rushing, 760 F.2d 660, 661 (5th Cir.1985). Rehearing is therefore denied on this point.

In point IV of its petition for rehearing, USF & G merely restates the argument that it made on the original hearing and that was rejected in the original panel opinion. 762 F.2d at 1244-45. The argument has, however, brought to our attention a misstatement of the effect of the bond’s pro rata provision discussed there. Accordingly, the fourth sentence of the next to last paragraph of the original opinion, 762 F.2d at 1245, is amended to state as follows:

In that case, the fees and costs would be prorated in proportion as the amount actually recovered exceeds the amount of the bond.

The petition for rehearing is therefore granted to that extent.

All other grounds for rehearing being without merit, the petition is in all other respects DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 F.2d 89, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 21184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/continental-savings-association-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-ca5-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack