Nautilus Ins Co v. Trejo, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 21, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-51153
Summary Calendar
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALL COUNTIES PROFESSIONAL SECURITIES INC.; ET AL
Defendants,
MAXIMO AGUILERA TREJO; IRENE MORALES, Individually and as
representative of the Estates of Miguel Aguilera Morales and
Juan Carlos Aguilera Morales, Deceased,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CV-1047
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nautilus Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed suit in the
U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas against All Counties
Professional Securities, Inc. (“ACPS”) and other named
individuals, alleging jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of
citizenship and seeking a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff was
not obligated under a commercial general liability policy issued

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-51153
-2-
by Plaintiff to ACPS to provide a defense for and/or indemnify
ACPS against claims asserted by the other defendants in a state
court action in the 250th Judicial District Court, Travis County,
Texas. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court
ruled that the claims asserted in the underlying state court
action fell within the language of an express liquor liability
exclusion in the commercial liability policy and granted summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiff. ACPS and the other defendants
appealed to this Court.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,
the relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons
stated by the district court in its order entered July 11, 2005,
we affirm the judgment entered by the district court that
Plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify ACPS under the
policy of insurance issued by Plaintiff to ACPS.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --