Interstate Protective Service, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance

Eleventh Circuit

Interstate Protective Service, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance

326 F. App'x 517

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 2009

DocketNo. 08-15413

StatusPublished

This text of 326 F. App'x 517 (Interstate Protective Service, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Interstate Protective Service, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance, 326 F. App'x 517 (11th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Interstate Protective Service, Inc. (IPS), appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nautilus Insurance Company (Nautilus) and denial of IPS’s motion for partial summary judgment. Specifically, IPS argues the district court erred in finding its commercial liability insurance policy, issued by Nautilus, excluded coverage for damages arising from a January 2003 robbery of a money center that was guarded by IPS.

After a de novo review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude the district court did not err in its grant of summary judgment to Nautilus and denial of IPS’s motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Interstate Protective Service, Inc. (IPS), appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nautilus Insurance Company (Nautilus) and denial of IPS’s motion for partial summary judgment. Specifically, IPS argues the district court erred in finding its commercial liability insurance policy, issued by Nautilus, excluded coverage for damages arising from a January 2003 robbery of a money center that was guarded by IPS.

After a de novo review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude the district court did not err in its grant of summary judgment to Nautilus and denial of IPS’s motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 F. App'x 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interstate-protective-service-inc-v-nautilus-insurance-ca11-2009.