Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20433/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20433-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Liberty Mutual Group, Incorporated
Appellee
U.S. Metals, Incorporated
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20433

U.S. METALS, INCORPORATED, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INCORPORATED, doing business as Liberty 

Insurance Corporation, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-379

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, OWEN, Circuit Judge, and MORGAN∗, 

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

This appeal arises from a dispute between U.S. Metals, Inc., (“U.S.

Metals”) and Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., (“Liberty”) regarding coverage of 

certain damages pursuant to two exclusions in a commercial general liability 

insurance policy (the “CGL Policy” or “Policy”). The district court granted 

 

∗ District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

** 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

FILED

July 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-20433 Document: 00513586145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2016
No. 13-20433

2

summary judgment for Liberty on U.S. Metals’s indemnity claim, in part, on 

the ground that Exclusion M in the Policy precludes coverage for “damage that 

occur[ed] during the replacement process to property other than [the flanges]—

in this case, the temperature coating, the gaskets, the piping, and the 

insulation.” In a prior opinion, we certified four questions to the Supreme 

Court of Texas regarding the proper interpretation of the Policy. See U.S. 

Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., 589 F. App’x 659, 663–64 (5th Cir. 2014). 

In answering our certified questions, the Supreme Court of Texas stated:

[t]he diesel units were restored to use by replacing the flanges and 

were therefore impaired property to which Exclusion M applies. 

Thus, their loss of use is not covered by the policy. But the 

insulation and gaskets destroyed in the process were not restored 

to use; they were replaced. They were therefore not impaired 

property to which Exclusion M applied, and the cost of replacing 

them was therefore covered by the policy.

U.S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc., No. 14-0753, 2015 WL 7792557, at 

*7 (Tex. Dec. 4, 2015), reh’g denied (June 17, 2016). The district court therefore 

erred in its holding regarding its interpretation of Exclusion M in the CGL 

Policy. Because the district court’s holdings regarding all of U.S. Metals’s 

claims relate to the interpretation of the Policy’s coverage and exclusions, we 

REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme 

Court of Texas’s opinion.

 Case: 13-20433 Document: 00513586145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2016