*2 DAVIS, PARKER, Bеfore STEWART and Judges. Circuit giving rise the events affairs when DAVIS, Judge: Circuit light. court lawsuits came to underlying state Liability Insur- Guarantee American Guarantee”) (“American filed picked up ance VAS client November cov- declaratory action resolve judgment contained her videotape thought which she *3 insureds, it and its between erage questions the portfolio photographs. When she viewed formerly Hat- known as Company, 1906 footage of dress- tape, she discovered herself (“Hat- Bottling Company tiesburg Coca-Cola dressing undressing in the VAS ing and Coke”), of that and certain officers tiesburg discovery police, to reported her room. She on court determined company. The district found numerous who searched studio and summary that American Guaran- judgment tapes containing footage young of wom- liability policy comprehensive general tee’s dressing undressing in the same en and outstanding for afforded fiber police The also discovered a room. part, in part, in vacate affirm claims. We a bench optic camera concealed underneath further consider- remand the case for and dressing in the room. opinion. light in our ation of following police investi- In the months twenty-one women filed lawsuits gation, I. Thomson, Richard against John VAS, plaintiffs Hattiesburg These Coke. and essentially undis- facts case are The of.this including in- alleged causes of action various developed an inter- puted. Having recently outrage, inflic- privacy, vasion of intentional Minnesota, living in photography in while est distress, fraud, negligence, tion of emotional Hattiesburg, Mis- to John Thomson returned complaints minors. The exploitation of photog- open to own sissippi a desire allegations Hattiesburg Coke included 1990, early Thom- In raphy studio. vicariously Thomson were liable and Richard son, Hattiesburg of and CEO John’s father as Hat- acts because John acted a for John’s Coke, Hattiesburg of authorized the use making tapes employee tiesburg Coke studio, photography open funds a Coke to John served as a director and and because (VAS). Arts The new studio Visual Studio Hattiesburg complaints officer of Coke. Street, Hardy Hatties- was located at 3820 Hattiesburg sought liability on also visit a from the burg, Mississippi, more than mile a Richard Thomson for host Coke and bottling operation. The studiо company’s torts, including negligence-based negligent videotap- photographing and concentrated on entrustment, supervision, neg- negligent modeling portfolios for ing young women ligent hiring. advertisements, “glamour photog- well as operated raphy.” Although the studio liability Hattiesburg Coke held insurance physically separate a name and was different periods Ameri- policies question. company, it was owned and bottling from the insurer, Guarantee, principal issued can their operated Hattiesburg Coke. a division of comprehensive gen- a combined Moreover, consid- employees were the VAS Hattiesburg liability insurance eral Coke, Hattiesburg and all employees of ered 31, covering period from December Coke concerning the major business decisions 1989, 31, through poli- December 1990. The studio, purchase of equipment from the cy period from was renewed for the Decem- termination of the and ultimate 1990, 31, 31, through December ber business, Coke’s liability policy provided insurance cover- Hardy corporate headquarters $1,000,- $500,000 age per occurrence Street. aggregate. Coke was 1991, also named insured under Umbrella operating By spring VAS was Policy Bottlers Liability Coca-Cola Thomson wanted the red and John National Thus, Hattiesburg Association issued General Star return to school. (“General Star”) op- for the Insurance terminate the studio’s officials decided 1, 1990, through January John, however, policy period Janu- still access to erations. had 1, policy pro- ary winding uр its 1991. Each General Star in the midst of VAS was $5,000,000 novo, per oc- applying the same vided standards as the aggregate. currence and district court. American States Ins. Co. v. (5th Cir.1996); Nethery, coverage, concerning After discussions Iso-Tex, Inc., Constitution State Ins. Co. agreed Hat- defend (5th Cir.1995). 61 F.3d Under Mis tiesburg Coke and Richard Thomson law, sissippi contract if an policy is state suits under reservation unambiguous, given its terms must be their indemnify rights, but defend or refused to plain meaning and enforced as written. rights Thomson. reservation' Int’l, Nethery, 475; 79 F.3d at Aero Inc. v. correspondence, American Guarantee raised United States Fire Ins. coverage questions, including several wheth (5th Cir.1983). However, if, if, but building designated prenL er the ambiguous, be interpreted it will ises; alleged whether the conduct constitut *4 in light the most to favorablе the insured. “occurrence”; damages ed an whether the Garriga, Nationwide Mut. Ins. alleged “bodily injury”; constituted and (Miss.1994). 658, 662 fell within a policy whether John’s conduct Eventually, exclusion criminal activities. sett twenty-one
nineteen the suits were A. led,1 with con agreeing John Thomson to primary The dispute between par the $2,545,000 approximately tribute and General designated prem ties concerns the effect of a $3,774,- agreeing pay approximately Star to ises endorsement to attached American behalf of Richard Thomson Hat on policy provided Guarantee’s The cov tiesburg Coke. erage to Coke and its officers settled, underlying Once the lawsuits were acting and directors while within the declaratory filed this their employment. An endorsement at judgment Thomson," action the policy specifically tached to made Company, Gen- part policy in the declarations limited eral obligations. Star resolve its injuries damages arising out The district found the insurance designated premises. of certain The contract policy unambiguously limited cover- reproduced language is below: injuries age arising premises from certain designated page on the declarations of the LIMITATION OF COVERAGE TO policy property and that was DESIGNATED PREMISES in designation. included The court also OR PROJECT concluded that John Thomson’s actions were pro- This endorsement modifies employment not within the of his insurance under the injuries following: vided alleged the women did pol- not constitute an “occurrence” under the
icy they expected intended or were GENERAL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY standpoint from the insured. Accord- PART. COVERAGE ingly, granted summary the district court judgment American favor of Guarantee. SCHEDULE The court also General denied Star’s claim Premises: payments for indemnification for the had it on behalf of Richard Thomson Company. appeal This followed. Project:
II. (If above, entry appears no information complete We grant required review the court’s endorsement will summary judgment interpretation and its applicable be shown the Declarations as Guarantee’s, ) policy of American de to this insurance endorsement . remaining 1. The two suits dismissed time barred. “bodily inju- unambiguous. designated premis applies only fy
This injury,” incorporated “personal specifically endorsement damage,” es ry,” “property expenses page, injury” policy into the on thus “advertising and medical the declarations putting Hattiesburg Coke and its officials on of: arising out their notice that limited to ownership, maintenance use 1. The premises. certain The endorsement refers in the premises shown Sched- page the reader back to the declarations necessary or inci- operations ule and premises premises covered if no find the are ... premises; to those dental Three listed endorsement. covered in the endorsement. listed premises No premises are in the listed declarations and the declara- premises referenced on among is not them. If the the VAS buildings, are three page of tions did in designated endorsement Premises,” header “Covered listed under corporate the listed declara Hardy Hattiesburg, Street located tions, purpose incorpo there then was no (4501-A), bottling plant Mississippi: the rating the endorsement into (4501-B), building and the ice maintenance place. adopt reading first We decline to (4501-C). properties No house policy that would render entire en specific in the declarations and mentioned See, surplusage. e.g., Brown v. dorsement premises to the des- ties the listed reference (Miss. 122, 126 Ins. Hartford *5 ignated premises endorsement. cases). 1992) (citing that Hattiesburg Coke because contends reasons, agree For these we with the dis- endorsement premises listed the policy unambiguously court that the trict lim- premises listed in because those itself and liability coverage and B to its both tо reference the the declarations make no injuries arising premises three out of the endorsement, the premises en designated of the page listed declarations effect; consequently, has no the dorsement VAS premises Because the is included injuries liability coverage is not limited list, correctly that the district court conclud- any particular property. arising out of It endorsement excluded for that is further contends the endorsement operation. injuries arising out of the VAS ambiguities must ambiguous, be least rise to giving John Thomson’s actions' the against the under Missis construed insurer injuries all occurred at and were related Papa Mississippi sippi See v. Farm law. solely to his use of studio. the VAS There- Co., Ins. Bureau Cas. fore, correctly granted the district court (Miss.1990); Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. summary judgment in favor of American (Miss.1989). Thomas, 555 So.2d against respect with to claims Guarantee argues that the en- American Guarantee for John Thomson.2 The same is true exclu- prem- makes clear that where no dorsement from sion on all claims Hat- listed on the endorse- specifically ises are tiesburg seeking Coke Richard Thomson ment, designated premises are those vicariously them to hold liable John page. Since listed on the declarations the Thomson’s actions. reach this We conclusion in the property is listed declara- solely VAS those claims arise ac- tions, anywhere policy, or else there tions taken Thomson at the John injuries arising for the out of is no studio. property according
that to American Guar-
antee. B. Appеllants policy language could further contend even
While
clearer,
correctly concluded
agree
we
court that
if the district court
quali-
designated premises
sufficiently
clear
endorsement ex-
endorsement
age
court
for John Thomson's actions
excluded
The district
also concluded
premises
plain
designated
videotaping
terms
surreptitiously
Thomson’s actions in
the
dorsement,
of the
en
beyond
we
at VAS
need not reach
of em
women
employment.
ployment
Because
that cover-
issue.
we conclude
injuries arising
necessary
prem
out of use
tions
or incidental”
coverage for
to those
eludes
ordinarily
property,
phrase “arising
it does not follow that
of the VAS
ises. The
out of’ is
neg-
from,”
excludes
“originating
this endorsеment
nderstood
to mean
u
against Hattiesburg
in,”
Coke and
ligence
of,”
claims
“having
origin
“growing
out
point
Thomson. These insureds
out
See,
Richard
“flowing
e.g.,
Body
from.”
Blue Bird
supervisory
over
that their
actions
VAS and
Rental, Inc.,
Ryder
v.Co.
Truck
from Hatties-
John Thomson were conducted
(5th Cir.1978).
717, 726
In the insurance
Hardy
burg
headquarters
Coke’s
context;
phrase
interpreted
is often
Street,
They
designated premises.
contend
require
inju
a causal connection between the
supervision
that because their
VAS oc-
alleged
objects
subject
ries
and the
designated premises,
at a
their con-
curred
phrase.
example,
For
in Roberts v. Gris
designated
constitutes a “use” of a
duct
ham,
(Miss.1986),
“operation ...
inci-
or at least an
Mississippi Supreme Court held that
designated premises
under the
dental to”
phrase “arising
ownership,
out of the
mainte
endorsement.
nance or use of
uninsured motor vehicle”
[an]
required a “causal connection”
responds
between the
American Guarantee
that the su-
giving
injuries
actions
rise to the
Hattiesburg
and the
pervisory actions
Coke and
concededly
uninsured automobile. The court went on to
occur-
while
“
headquarters,
enough
re-
note that it is not
that the ‘automo
ring at
merely
solely
operation
nondesig-
of a
bile was
the situs of the accident
lated
any
nated
and had no nexus whatever which could as well have occurred in
”
(citation omitted).
bottling operation,
Coke’s
location.’
Id.
primary operation
designated premis- Similarly,
of the
Catfish,
in Delta Pride
Inc.
Moreover,
(Miss.
pоints
es.
Home Insurance
Because the is the intent, see, premises parties’ e.g., designated of the Thomson and the locat- best indication (Miss. Crabb, Cooper Harding further con- ed Street. We 1991) (“Common parties’ It suggests sense clude that such a connection exists. is VAS, undisputed up writings the their that the decisions to set most reliable evidence of intent.”), offices, purchase equipment, begin we with the terms of the construct down, and, premises eventually, to it were all designated endorsement. The en close injuries by Richard Thomson and other Hat- dorsement limits to certain “ownership, tiesburg employees officials and at Hat- “arising out of’ the maintenance Coke premises “opera- tiesburg headquarters, designated a or use” of the covered and Coke Moreover, operated buildings as a from the condition or use of its premises. VAS was Coke, above, Hattiesburg buildings. with For the reasons described formal division that requisite we concludе connec- assigned pres- the title of vice causal John Thomson injuries alleged Di- Hattiesburg Arts tion exists between the Coke’s “Visual ident of addition, underlying state Thomson testi- court lawsuits the use Richard vision.” company’s by Hattiesburg headquarters Richard deposition that all of in his fied supervise general Hattiesburg Thomson and Coke to the same shared Coke’s divisions VAS, wholly- Thomson’s at and that all of VAS’s ex- John activities checking account .Thus, company. division of the penses paid from this account. owned Hattiesburg claims pay negligence against all ex- required to Coke Thomson was penses rolling petty account and Richard Thomson not excluded from cash coverage by expenses receipts designated en- then submit his .Coke, which would then remit dorsement. into account. these sums back C. circumstances, a factfinder Under argues that even if Hat- find a causal connection between could Coke tiesburg and Richard Thomson’s su- is not designat- excluded under the activities, pervisory operation of the .endorsement, there is cover- premises, injuries designated and the injuries age for these because there has been from John intentional resulted Thomson’s policy. no “occurrence” To answer actions at Our conclusion and tortious VAS. requires this contention a closer look at the fur- a sufficient causal nexus exists is coverage portions of. American .Guarantee’s by supported the fact that the ther policy. Liability a Commercial General issue is (“CGL”) Owner’s, merely policy, and not an comprehensive general The commercial lia Landlord, (“OLT”) Tenant bility policy parts. into two. divided leading more treatise describes the limited A, part,' Coverage against first insures “bodi policy, compared an nature of OLT ly injury” damage” “property liability. policy, as follows:’ CGL applies bodily injury This or property damage caused “occur liability veryA common form of rence,” which .is the policy defined owner, occupi- which is the one insures the accident, “an including mean continuous or er, operator real repeated exposure substantially the same ownership incident to or use of *7 Also, general harmful Coverage conditions.” insurance, pur- premises. Such expressly A coverage bodily excludes for in simply protect against is pose of which jury “expected damage or or in liability arising from or the condition use standpoint tended from the insured.” building building as a be dis- must liability tinguished against from insurance B, part, Coverage The second insures enterprise arising from nature of the liability against “personal injury” for therein., activity or conducted More sim- “advertising injury.” Rather than using “oc stated, liability policy ply building a does currence,” predicate coverage, as a for Cov liability arising a the in- not cover from erage provides B coverage for in qualifying activity building. sured’s by. juries arising “caused an offense out of your , policy 11 Couch ON Insurance 44:379 at business.” The not does define .551-52 (2d. ed.1982). does, finding policy Were we confined the term howev “offense.” injuries er, “personal injury” being inju causal сonnection between define all stem- improper videotaping ry, injury, than ming bodily at VAS that arises out of specified use of Coverage Coke’s certain “offenses.” B Hardy building, injuries 4501 Street we doubt also excludes “[a]rising willful penal we would reach same conclusion. How- out of the violation of a statute ever, policy designed by CGL to insure or ordinance or with its committed the con just injuries arising from more holder than sent of the insured.”
809
activities,
below, we con-
of other tortious
the ‘ultimate
the reasons set forth
is
For
Hat-
against
direct claims
clude that the
sue’ is whether the
activities them
tortious
predi-
Richard,
tiesburg Coke
encompassed by
selves are
the ‘occurrence’
fault are not covered
cated on their own
definition.”); New York
Ins. v. Travelеrs
Life
However,
Coverage
A of the
(5th Cir.1996)
Co.,
336,
Ins.
92 F.3d
339
later,
explain
parties have
as we
because the
(excluding
negligent hiring,
claims for
train
adequately
coverage under
addressed
ing,
supervision against employer
B,
relating to
Coverage
questions
we remand
“interdependent
were “related to” and
on”
court.3
Coverage B to the district
by employee
employ
claim of fraud
imputed
employer);
ee’s intent is
Canutil
Indep.
v.
lo
Sch. Dist. Nat’l Union Fire Ins.
argues
that the
Cir.1996)
(5th
(“Where
695,
99 F.3d
Coverage
against
Hatties
claims under
legal
plaintiffs
claims asserted
burg
Thomson are exclud
Coke and Richard
exclusive,
independent
mutually
but
exclusion,
acts”
which
ed
the “deliberate
dependent upon
rather
related
exclud
injuries “expected
removes
for all
conduct,
covered,
the claims are not
even
the in
standpoint
or intended from
if
against
asserted
insured who did not
sured.” There can be no doubt that John
conduct.”);
prohibited
engage
himself
surreptitiously
video
Thomson intended
Republic
Comprehensive
Ins.
Old
tape the women and that
the harm caused
Assoc., Inc.,
F.Supp.
Health Care
thereby
expected
standpoint.
from his
(N.D.Tex.1992),
grounds,
on other
aff'd
con
Richard Thomson and
(5th Cir.1993) (finding
duty
F.3d 105
no
much,
they argue
cede as
but
that from their
against
negligent
claim of
defend insured
standpoint, the conduct was neither intended
hiring
claim of negligent hiring
when the
expected. They
nor
further
contend
agent’s
arises out of
intentional
sexual
“separation
of insureds” clause
harassment); Columbia Mut.
Ins. Co. v.
requires
expectations
that we examinе their
(5th
Mart, Inc.,
Fiesta
entirely
and intent
divorced from those of Cir.1993)
law,
(holding that under Texas
Thomson.4
liability
liability
where
insured and
Although
Mississippi
we have found no
agent
interdependent,”
were “related and
issue,
Court, in
addressing
cases
this
this
agent’s
court must look to whether
fraud was
applying
neighboring jurisdictions,
the law of
by policy); Huey T.
covered
Littleton
rejected
repeatedly
argument.
has
Claims,
Employers
Inc. v.
Reinsurance
provid
These cases hold
Cir.1991)
(5th
(h
Corp., 933 F.2d
oldi
employer
supervisory personnel ed the
or
law,
ng that under Louisiana
dishonest act
negligent hiring
supervision
claims of
or
employer’s
exclusion
commercial
underlying tortious
is in
when the
conduct
negligence
lia
excluded
and vicarious
against
and when those claims
tentional
employer
bility
claims
fоr losses
employer
supervisor
are related to and
upon
of its em
based
the excluded conduct
interdependent
employee’s
inten
ployee).
tional misconduct. See Cornhill Insurance
*8
(5th
Valsamis, Inc.,
leading
commentator has
that
observed
PLC. v.
Cir.1997) (“[W]here
consistent
in their
liability premised on courts have not been
clauses,
negligence
interdependent
separation
of insured
is related to and
treatment
above,
separation
provides:
3. As we held
all of the claims under
4. The
of insureds clause
Thomson,
against
Coverage
B
well
A and
John
Insurance,
Except
respect to the
Limits
against
as those claims asserted
Richard Thom-
specifically
any rights
assigned
or duties
in
theory
they
Insured,
that
son and
on
Coverage
to the
this
Part
first Named
аctions,
vicariously
are
liable for
are ex-
John's
applies:
by
designated premises
Ac-
only
cluded
clause.
a.
Named
were
As if each
Insured
the.
Insured;
against
cordingly,
negligence
claims
Named
against
Separately
Richard Thomson and
Coke remain
b.
to each insured
brought.
whom claim is made or "suit” is
issue.
apply
Mississippi courts would
these
believe
against one insured
where claims
particularly
resolving the issue.
against
principles
another.
same
to claims
closely related
Appleman, INSURANCELaw
See 7A J.
injuries stemming from the
Because the
1979)
(Berdal ed.
4492.01
PRACTICE
or ex-
improper videotaping were intended
(“The
to standard
severability clause added
standpoint
pected from the
of John
usually recog
is not
liability policies in 1955
negligence
against Hat-
the related
claims
regarding in
litigation
in most oí the
nized
Richard Thomson are ex-
tiesburg Coke and
in lia
acts that result
negligent
tentional
Accordingly,
Coverage A.
we
cluded under
that its
It would seem
bility to
insured.
properly
court
conclude that
the district
adequately
recognized
implications are not
summary judgment
favor
granted
courts.”).
Indeed, this
litigants or the
by the
on this issue.
Circuit some
has caused our
is an issue that
Heritag
Ins. v.
difficulty.
e
See Western
Care,
Learning
& Child
Magic Years
Ctrs.
Thom
Hattiesburg Coke and Richard
(5th Cir.1995)
negli
Inc.,
(holding
if the district
argue further that even
son
employer related to sex
against
claims
gence
correctly
that American Guaran
found
employee
of child
molestation
ual
coverage to them
Cov
provided
tee
no
under
exclusion,
aсts
intentional
not excluded
A, they
still
to recover
erage
entitled
separabil
contained a
part because
court, appar
Coverage B. The district
clause);
Life,
1972).
in furtherance of the
business
designated
find
I would
activity
engaging in the
the em
whether
ambiguous.
contract
portion of the
engaged
private purpose.
in a
ployee was
ambiguity in an insurance
an
In the case of
Inn, Inc.,
860,
Holliday v. Pizza
659 So.2d
that reso-
long
established
been
policy, it has
(Miss.1995).
upon make
We
called
865
in favor of
ambiguity must be
lution of the
guess
to whether or
John
Erie
as
not
Hampshire Ins.
v.
New
the insured.
acting
scope of his
Thomson was
within the
(Miss.1977).
1307,
Robertson,
1311
So.2d
352
v. Za
employment. See Nautilus Ins. Co.
provisions of a contract
construing
In
(5th Cir.1997).
mora,
536,
538
insurance,
policy
provisions
of the
all
of
Mississip
not resemble the
This case does
construed, if it can be reason?
must
so
in which the servant
pi “deviation” cases
done,
give effect to each.
as to
ably
so
from the master’s business and his
deviated
subject
interpre-
is
policy
When
two.
scope
tortious acts were thus outside the
of
reasonable,
tations,
that which
equally
South,
See,
employment.
e.g., Seedkem
his
indemnity to the insured
greater
gives the
Lee,
990,
(Miss.1980);
Inc.
391 So.2d
995
v.
policy
all cases the
prevail....
will
384,
v. Walley,
Motor Co.
217 Miss.
Lovett
liberally
favor
must be
construed
370,
(1953);
Jepsen,
So.2d
372-73
Stovall
pur-
insured,
accomplish the
in ordеr to
(1943).
115,
229,
195 Miss.
pose
the insurance.
place
employ
leave
Thomson did not
his
Gunn,
(quoting
Southern
performed the same acts as he
ment and he
Wall,
865, 127
So.
Home Ins. Co. v.
Miss.
always
permis
at
did VAS albeit without
(1930)).
long-estab
Following this
Rather,
photographic subjects.
sion of the
construction,
contract
I would
lished rule of
the decisive fact
this case was that John
against American
ambiguity
construe the
videotaping
was
the undressed
that the
lacks a
and find
Guarantee
permission
without
their
and was
women
to which
designation
clearly serving
purpose
his own
in that re
find that the endorse
thus
was limited and
spect.
aspect
That
of the activities indicates
coverage for the VAS
preclude
ment does
videotaping was for John Thomson’s
that the
premises.
purposes.
own
did not
Having determined
Mississippi Supreme
The
Court has ex
Company premises
particular 1906
designate
plained that the determination of whether an
limited1,
coverage was
I must then
to which
employment
scope
act was
rests
within
precluded for
if
is
determine
employee’s purposes in
on the
his tortious
reasons.
activity.
question
“[T]he decisive
is
acting
the servant was
in accordance
whether
employment
Scope of
b.
master, but,
with the instructions of the
was
Insured”,
is an
“Section II —Who
Under
doing any
time
act in furtherance of
he
by employees
for acts
coverage is excluded
servant,
If a
[sic]
his masters’
business.
scope
employment.”
of their
not “within
master,
having completed
duty
his
to- his
considered a number of
The district
proceeds
proseсute
private pur
then
some
dealing
scope
issue
cases
Mississippi
own,
pose of
the master is not hable.”
secret video-
that John Thomson’s
and found
Holliday,
(quoting
813
business,
diversity,
obligated
master’s
nor as to
we are
to do as we be-
gaged
it,
Mississippi Supreme
lieve
doing
manner or
Court would
mode or
—whether
Zamora,
think best.
114
at
appliances
See
doing the act he uses
master,
whether,
Mississippi Supreme
nature of The
Court has made no
from the
—but
done,
following way
actually
suggestion
an
of the “Com-
itself as
it was
act
the act
business,
law,
hill-type”
wholly
Mississippi
cases. Under
“the
in the master’s
or
done
servant,
keystone
of the occurrence definition is that
therefrom the
disconnected
servant,
giving
the event
rise to the claim
as an
on his own
should
but
individual
expected
neither
nor
intended
account.
standpoint
Fidelity
of the insured.”
&
U.S.
Holliday,
(quoting
at
864
Canton
Inc.,
Guarаnty
Stanley,
v. T.K.
764
Pool,
147,
Cotton
Co. v.
78 Miss.
Warehouse
(S.D.Miss.1991).
F.Supp.
leading
81
trea-
(1900)).
823,
agree
I
with the
28 So.
tise offers a similar
definition: “the act is
Thom-
district court that
for John
unexpected
if- it was
accident
or unantic-
policy
precluded
son is
under the
because his
ipated
standpoint
from the
of the insured.”
employ-
acts were outside the
of his
(rev. ed.)
41:14,
on
Couch
Insurance 2d
at
they
personal
ment as
were for his own
explained
20-21. One
has
I
the ma-
purposes.
therefore concur with
proper approach.
policy
jority that the
affords no
for
injury
of whether an
“The
is the result
test
John Thomson.
of an
is to be
accident
determined from the
FOR RICHARD THOMSON
COVERAGE
viewpoint of the insured and not from the
AND THE 1906 COMPANY
viewpoint of the
that
one
committed the
injury.”
act
causing
Mohn v. Am.
I have concluded that John Thomson
Since
Co.,
Casualty
458 Pa.
sippi separation age to John Thomson law nor consideration I sitting that conclusion a different route. provisions. As a court reach insureds the issues under Cover- further concur question as well as the
age B of the be remanded to the
attorney fees should *12 for further consideration.
district court
However, majority’s I dissent afforded
determination Richard Thomson and the 1906
coverage to separation of insureds
Company'under the district court found that
clause. Because obligations had no un- it found no basis for policy,
der its General indemnity payments
Star’s claim
it had on behalf Richard Thomson Company. Because I would
and the 1906
hold Guarantee was indeed that American
obligated Richard Thomson the 1906 policy, I
Company under its would also re- indemnity
mand Star’s claim to General for a determination of the indemnity
amount of American Guarantee’s
obligation to General Star. WEGNER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Robert P. COMPANY,
STANDARD INSURANCE
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-20062. of Appeals, States Court
United
Fifth Circuit. 9, 1997.
Dec.