Woodall, et al v. Henderson, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
June 5, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60583
Summary Calendar
In The Matter Of: RONALD ELLZY WOODALL,
Debtor,
RONALD ELLZY WOODALL; MISSISSIPPI INSURANCE
GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION,
Appellees,
versus
DORIS MERCHANT; DON WHITE,
Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(2:01-CV-328-PG)
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Doris Merchant and Don White appeal the district court’s
reversal of a bankruptcy court order authorizing lifting an
automatic bankruptcy stay to allow a medical malpractice action to
proceed to trial against the debtor in state court. The only issue
for the district court was whether insurance coverage existed for

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the claimed malpractice — if so, the stay-lift was appropriate.
The district court determined there was no coverage because the
debtor (insured) failed to report the claim to the insurance
company within the policy period as required by the policy.
Our review is de novo. E.g., In re Sutton, 904 F.2d 327, 329
(5th Cir. 1990). Based upon the parties’ briefs and the relevant
portions of the record, especially the insurance policy, and
essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its
comprehensive opinion, the reversal of the stay-lift was proper.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --