SHARON MARTAUZ and FRANK MARTAUZ v. T H E T R A V E L E R S I N D E M N I T Ycompany of Illinois

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0382n.06
Filed: May 11, 2005
No. 04-3704
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
SHARON MARTAUZ and FRANK
MARTAUZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
T H E T R A V E L E R S I N D E M N I T Y
COMPANY OF ILLINOIS et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: GUY, DAUGHTREY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs Sharon and Frank Martauz originally brought this civil
action in state court against defendants Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, Travelers
Insurance Company, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief under uninsured motorist and umbrella insurance policies
issued by the defendants to Sharon Martauz’s then-employer, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, for injuries that she suffered in a 1989 automobile accident while on a business
trip for MetLife. The defendants removed the action to federal court and filed motions for
summary judgment, based on their contention that notices they received from the plaintiffs

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-3704
Martauz v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
- 2 -
in 2001 were untimely. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants,
finding that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the notice provisions of the
policies when they waited over twelve years to inform the defendants of their claims. In
response to the plaintiffs’ contention that they could not have given earlier notice because
they did not know that they were covered under the policies, the district court held that the
Martauzes had breached the notice provisions by not “exercising diligence in investigating
possible coverage” within a reasonable time after the accident that caused Sharon
Martauz’s injuries.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal
and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
the complaint. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendants
have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this
court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its
memorandum opinion and order dated April 29, 2004.

-- 2 of 2 --