Dover v. US Fire Ins Co

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60687
Summary Calendar
BOYCE DOVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants,
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(2:96-CV-358-PG)
March 16, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In March 1992, Boyce Dover ("Dover") sustained personal
injuries during the course and scope of his employment with Jove
Technologies, Inc., formerly Jove Engineering, Inc. ("Jove").
Dover received workman’s compensation benefits totaling $89,674.47
from United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company who provided
workman’s compensation coverage to Jove. Thereafter Jove went into
bankruptcy and a plan of reorganization was approved in August
1994. In March 1995, Dover sued Jove and others seeking damages

-- 1 of 2 --

2
for failure to furnish a safe place to work and failure to properly
supervise the work activities which resulted in the injuries to
Dover in March 1992. Counsel for Dover and Jove entered into an
agreement under which if Jove allowed a default judgment to be
taken against it, Dover would not seek to recover against any
assets of Jove but would look only to insurance coverage which
might be applicable. Accordingly, Jove did not file an answer and
a default judgment was entered in favor of Dover against Jove in
the amount of $625,000 in September 1995. In October 1996, Dover
filed this suit against United States Fire Insurance Company
seeking to recover payment of the default judgment against Jove
under a comprehensive general liability insurance policy which
United States Fire had issued to Jove and which was outstanding at
the time of the injuries to Dover in 1992. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment; and the district court ruled
that express exclusions in the United States Fire policy precluded
recovery under that policy. Accordingly, the district court denied
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. Dover appeals.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply briefs, the
record excerpts and relevant portions of the summary judgment
record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 24, 1999, we affirm
the Final Judgment entered on September 29, 1999, in favor of
defendant.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --