Cathy BAILEY, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Corey Deon Bailey, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julia QUIROGA; Craig Elliott; Timothy Click; Daniel Moreno; Quinton Lacy, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 12-10398.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 25, 2013.
517 Fed. Appx. 268
Marc H. Richman, Thad D. Spalding, Esq., Law Office of Marc Richman, Edgar Leon Carter, James Robert Arnett, II, Attorney, Joshua J. Bennett, Carter, Stafford, Arnett, Hamada & Mockler, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an interlocutory appeal in which five individual Defendants who were detention officers at the Dallas County Jail assert qualified immunity. This court has no jurisdiction to review this kind of interlocutory appeal except “to the extent that [the district court‘s denial of summary judgment] turns on an issue of law.” Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985))(en banc). Defendants appeal the denial of their separate motions for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to prove that her son‘s death resulted “directly and only” from the use of excessive force. Because the answer to that question of law determines the correctness of the judgment, we have jurisdiction of the appeal.
We have previously rejected Defendants’ interpretation of language requiring that a victim‘s injury resulted “directly and only” from the use of excessive force. This language comes from our decision in Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc). In Mouille v. City of Live Oak, the defendants argued that Johnson‘s “directly and only” language “require[d] plaintiffs to provide expert medical testimony showing that the plaintiff‘s injury was caused exclusively by the defendant‘s conduct.” 918 F.2d 548, 553 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). We rejected that interpretation, stating that “[t]he [directly-and-only] language quoted from Johnson cannot be isolated to create a new and different rule of proof”—that is, above ordinary proof of causation. Id. Accordingly, Mouille clarifies that Plaintiff in this case was not required to present evidence that Defendants’ use of excessive force was the exclusive cause of her son‘s death; so long as the injury resulted from “clearly excessive and objectively unreasonable” force, her claim is actionable. Id.
Rejecting that issue appealed and hav
AFFIRMED.
NAT‘L UNION FIRE INS. CO OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONTINENTAL CARBON CO., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-20428.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 25, 2013.
517 Fed. Appx. 269
Clyde Marlin Hettrick, III, Los Angeles, CA, Cynthia Ann Holub, Porter & Hedges, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute which stems from six underlying suits (“the pollution suits”)1 filed by various plaintiffs alleging exposure to dust and particulate pollution discharged by the defendant, Continental Carbon Company (“CCC”). National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) insured CCC over a period of years under several primary and umbrella insurance policies. CCC sought defense and indemnity from National Union in the pollution suit proceedings under the umbrella insurance policies. National Union denied CCC‘s request, citing the plain language of the policies, the pollution exclusions contained therein, and the inapplicability of the corresponding exceptions to those exclusions.
After the conclusion of various other state court, federal district court, and arbitration proceedings, National Union and CCC both filed motions for partial summary judgment in federal district court in Houston, Texas. The district judge rendered summary judgment in favor of National Union, holding that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify CCC in the pollution suits under any of the umbrella insurance policies effective between the parties from 1995-2001.2 CCC filed the instant appeal.
This court reviews a district court‘s grant of summary judgment de novo. Nat‘l Cas. Co. v. W. World Ins. Co., 669 F.3d 608