Mid-Continent Cslty v. Daneshjou Co Inc, 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
1
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 14, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 06-50552
Summary Calendar
_______________________
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff–Counter Defendant–Appellee,
versus
DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; ET AL,
Defendants,
DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; M. B. DANESHJOU,
Defendants–Counter Claimants–Appellants.
__________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. 1:05–CV–182–SS)
__________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daneshjou Company Inc. and M.B. Daneshjou (collectively “Daneshjou”) appeal the

-- 1 of 2 --

2
district court’s summary declaratory judgment that Mid-Continent Casualty Company owes
Daneshjou no duty to defend or indemnify. We affirm for the reasons given by the district
court in its very thorough discussion of the issue of manifestation and the evidence regarding
the same.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --