U.S. Metals, Incorporated v. Liberty Mutual Group,, No. 13-20433 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 19, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 13-20433 Document: 00513586145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-20433 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 11, 2016 U.S. METALS, INCORPORATED, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, doing business as Liberty Insurance Corporation, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-379 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, OWEN, Circuit Judge, and MORGAN∗, District Judge. PER CURIAM:** This appeal arises from a dispute between U.S. Metals, Inc., (“U.S. Metals”) and Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., (“Liberty”) regarding coverage of certain damages pursuant to two exclusions in a commercial general liability insurance policy (the “CGL Policy” or “Policy”). The district court granted District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. ∗ ** Case: 13-20433 Document: 00513586145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2016 No. 13-20433 summary judgment for Liberty on U.S. Metals’s indemnity claim, in part, on the ground that Exclusion M in the Policy precludes coverage for “damage that occur[ed] during the replacement process to property other than [the flanges]— in this case, the temperature coating, the gaskets, the piping, and the insulation.” In a prior opinion, we certified four questions to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the proper interpretation of the Policy. See U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., 589 F. App’x 659, 663–64 (5th Cir. 2014). In answering our certified questions, the Supreme Court of Texas stated: [t]he diesel units were restored to use by replacing the flanges and were therefore impaired property to which Exclusion M applies. Thus, their loss of use is not covered by the policy. But the insulation and gaskets destroyed in the process were not restored to use; they were replaced. They were therefore not impaired property to which Exclusion M applied, and the cost of replacing them was therefore covered by the policy. U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., No. 14-0753, 2015 WL 7792557, at *7 (Tex. Dec. 4, 2015), reh’g denied (June 17, 2016). The district court therefore erred in its holding regarding its interpretation of Exclusion M in the CGL Policy. Because the district court’s holdings regarding all of U.S. Metals’s claims relate to the interpretation of the Policy’s coverage and exclusions, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court of Texas’s opinion. 2
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.
