St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. LP Operating, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE § INSURANCE COMPANY, § Plaintiff § SA-23-CV-00888-XR § -vs- § § LP OPERATING, LLC, § Defendant §

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this date, the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer’s Report and Recommendation in this case. ECF No. 29. After careful consideration, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. ANALYSIS I. Legal Standard A party may serve and file objections to a report and recommendation within fourteen days. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), (b)(2). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive [sic] or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996). Courts must review de novo any of the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Any sections that were not clearly objected to are reviewed for clear error to determine whether they are contrary to law. Id.; see also United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). II. Analysis Plaintiff timely filed objections. ECF No. 30. Because Plaintiff timely objected to the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews it de novo. Having done so and for the reasons given in the Report and Recommendation, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as its own order. See also Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc., 75 F 4th 522, 536 (Sth Cir. 2023) (“The duty to defend is negated here because the [underlying plaintiff] only allege[s] damage caused, either in whole or in part, by pollutants. But evidence arising from or related to the Underlying Suit may reveal that non-pollutants caused the plaintiffs’ damage.”) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, itis ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer (ECF No. 29) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff have declaratory judgment that they have no duty to defend Defendant LP Operating, LLC in the underlying lawsuit styled Bingham et al. v. LP Operating, LLC, Cause No. 23-04-0258-CVA, 81st-218th District Court of Atascosa County, TX. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 14th day of March, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE