Case ID: f-appx_489/html/0769-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COATS, ROSE, YALE, RYMAN & LEE, P.C., Plaintiff-Appellant v. NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-10055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 15, 2012.
    David Scott Lynch, Byron George Lee, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Richard Albert Simpson, Wiley Rein, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. (“Coats”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”). Coats sued Navigators seeking a declaration that Navigators has a conflict of interest in defending an underlying lawsuit against Coats such that Navigators is obligated to pay for independent counsel to defend Coats. See Northern County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davalos, 140 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Tex.2004)(explaining such conflicts of interest). We have carefully considered the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and counsel’s oral arguments in light of the applicable law. For substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, 830 F.Supp.2d 216 (N.D.Tex.2011), we conclude that the district court committed no error warranting reversal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.