Sfi, Incorporated v. United States Fire Insurance Company

Fifth Circuit

Sfi, Incorporated v. United States Fire Insurance Company

634 F.2d 879, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20865

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 1981

Docket78-2954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 634 F.2d 879 (Sfi, Incorporated v. United States Fire Insurance 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

Sfi, Incorporated v. United States Fire Insurance Company, 634 F.2d 879, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20865 (5th Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

In 1976 SFI, Inc. filed suit in district court alleging that its insurer, United *880 States Fire Insurance Co., had failed to comply with the coverage terms of a policy it had issued to SFI. The insurance company answered the allegations and offered the defense that SFI had, by failing to act with due diligence in maintaining a burglar alarm system, breached a protective safeguards endorsement contained in the policy. The district court found that SFI had acted with due diligence, and held for the plaintiff. This appeal followed.

We find no error in the district court’s determination of the applicable law, nor in its application of the law to the facts of the case. Moreover, we may not overturn the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Liverett, 475 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1973); Sumrall v. Resolute Insurance Co., 377 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1967). See also Western Cottonoil Co. v. Hodges, 218 F.2d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1954). Because the district court’s findings are by no means clearly erroneous, we affirm the district court’s decision and adopt in full its opinion, reported at SFI, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 453 F.Supp. 502 (M.D.La. 1978).

AFFIRMED.

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

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

In 1976 SFI, Inc. filed suit in district court alleging that its insurer, United *880 States Fire Insurance Co., had failed to comply with the coverage terms of a policy it had issued to SFI. The insurance company answered the allegations and offered the defense that SFI had, by failing to act with due diligence in maintaining a burglar alarm system, breached a protective safeguards endorsement contained in the policy. The district court found that SFI had acted with due diligence, and held for the plaintiff. This appeal followed.

We find no error in the district court’s determination of the applicable law, nor in its application of the law to the facts of the case. Moreover, we may not overturn the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Liverett, 475 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1973); Sumrall v. Resolute Insurance Co., 377 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1967). See also Western Cottonoil Co. v. Hodges, 218 F.2d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1954). Because the district court’s findings are by no means clearly erroneous, we affirm the district court’s decision and adopt in full its opinion, reported at SFI, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 453 F.Supp. 502 (M.D.La. 1978).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 F.2d 879, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 20865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sfi-incorporated-v-united-states-fire-insurance-company-ca5-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack