Continental Casualty Co. v. Consolidated Graphics Inc., et al., No. 09-20666 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseConsolidated Graphics defendants sought to recover the cost of defending a suit against them and indemnity for an adverse judgment against them in that suit from two insurers. At issue was whether the primary insurer or an excess insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify the Consolidated Graphics defendants in an underlying tort suit. The court held that the district court did not err in holding that the primary insurer had no duty to defend the Consolidated Graphics defendants in the underlying litigation and therefore, the excess insurer had no duty to defend the primary insurer's policy limits. The court also held that the Consolidated Graphics defendants could not establish a basis for coverage and therefore, the primary insurer and excess insurer were not obligated to indemnify them. The court also held that the district court's grant of the primary insurer's motion to amend its pleadings on the same day that court entered final judgment in the case did not alter the summary judgment evidence in the record or the arguments in the motion. Accordingly, any error in that regard was harmless.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.