Case ID: f-appx_544/html/0287-02.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

PREMIUM PLASTICS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SEATTLE SPECIALTY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; Great American Assurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-20285.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 14, 2013.
    Eric Julian Mayer, Ryan Vincent Cau-ghey, Esq., Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Kathleen Hopkins Alsina, Peri Hayriye Alkas, Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Premium Plastics appeals the judgment of the district court in favor of the defendant. In this appeal, Premium Plastics raises one issue — whether the district court erred in finding that Premium Plastics does not have standing as a third-party beneficiary to seek remedies under or related to the policy issued by defendant Great American Assurance Company and administered by defendant Seattle Specialty Insurance Services, Inc. This issue was not raised in the district court and Premium Plastics did not dispute defendants’ arguments that Premium Plastics had no claim under the policy. Ordinarily, this court will not consider arguments not raised in the district court. Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir.2002)(“If a party fails to assert a legal reason why summary judgment should not be granted, that ground is waived and cannot be considered or raised on appeal.”). Because there has been no significant change in the law that would justify allowing Premium Plastics to raise this new argument that was not raised or responded to in the district court, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We also deny Premium Plastics’s Motion to Supplement the record.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.