Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11039 NA T I ON A L UN I ON F I R E I NS URA NC E C OMP A NYO F P I T T S B UR GH , PE NN S YLVANIA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. M ARY M CM URRAY D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 06- C V

- 545 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , SM ITH , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * T h i s d i sp u te con cern s th e d en i a lof acla i m f or a cciden tal dea thbe n efits u n der a bl an ket acc i den ti n suran ce pol i cy i ssuedby N ati on alU n i on F i re Insuran ce C om pa n y of P i t t sbu rgh, P en n sylvan i a. N ati on alU n i on den i ed c o v e r a g e fo rth e cla im o n th e g r o u n d s th a t t h e cir c u m s ta n c e s o f d e a th d idn o t fa ll w i t h i n t h e pol i cy’ s coverage. T h e di st ri ct court agreed , gran t i n g su m m ary United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 11039

2 j u dg m en ti n favor of N ati on alU n i on . Th e spou se of t h e deceden tpol i cyholder a p p e a l s t h a td e c i s i o n . F o rt h e f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM . I . B AC KGR OUND Af t e raSe pt e m ber2 004 w eddi ng, J o e a nd M ary M c M ur r ayw e nto n a h on eym oon cr u i se w i t hO cean i a C rui ses. Joe M cM u rray pu rc h ased the crui se w i t h hi s Pl at i num Sel ec tC i t ib ank M as t er c ar d, w hi c h i ncl uded a $1, 000, 000 ac c i de nt alde ath o r di s m e m be r m e nt i ns ur anc e po l i c y i s s ue d byN at i o nalU ni o n. A s Joe ’ s spo use , M ar y M c M urr ay w as eli gibl e f orbe nef

i t s und ert he poli c y. A m on g t h e covered haza rd s f or w h i ch acci den t aldeath ben ef i t s w ere provi ded w as i nj u ry or dea t h t h at oc curred w h il e a n in sured p erson w as “ri di n g as a pa ssenger i n or on (i n cl u di n g gett i n g i n or ou tof, or on or of f of ) an y C om m on C a r r ie r .” T h e p o lic yd e fin e d“c o m m o n ca r r ie r” a s “ a n ylice n s e dla n d , w a te ro ra ir convey an ce ope r at e d b y tho s ew h ose oc cup ati on or bu si n ess i s t h e t ran sport ati on of persons f

or hi re. ” “Pa ssenger” w as def i n ed as “a person not perf orm i n g as a p ilo t, o p e r a to ro rcr e w m e m b e ro f aco n v e y a n c e .” W h i le o n th e cr u i se, t h e M cM u rrays purch ased a sepa rat e w h i t ew ater r af t i ng exc urs i on o per at ed byR i os Tro pi c al es i n C os t a R i c a. Thi s exc urs i on w as cha rged to t h e M cM u rrays’cruis e a ccoun tan d becam e an add i t i on alcharge on M r . M c M urr ay’ s C i t ibank M as t er c ar d. D uri ng t he raf t i ng t r i p, M r . M c M urr ay t r agi c all y w as t hr o w n f r o m hi s r af

ta nd d r o w ne d. M s . M c M ur r ays ubm i t t e d a c l ai m f orac c i dent al deat h benef i t s und ert he N at i onalU ni on poli c y. N at i onal U n i on den i ed th e cl ai m , concl u di n g t h at th e raf ti n w h i ch the M cM u rrays w ere r i di ng w as nota c om m on c ar r i er , and t hey w er e no tpas se nger s und ert he poli c y. N a ti on a lU n i on the n f i l eda d eclara toryj u d gm en t a cti on . Itsou gh t a determ i n ati on of

t h e pol i cy’ s c overage an d a decl arati on t h at no ben ef i t s w ere o w e d. M s . M c M ur r ayf i l e d ac o unt e r c l ai m , al l egi ng br e ac h o f e xp r e s s a nd im p lie dw a r r a n tie s , b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t, b r e a c h o f th e d u tyo f g o o dfa ith a n dfa ir d e a lin g , a n db r e a c h o f aT e x a s p r o m p t p a y m e n t o f c la im s s ta tu te .N o. 08- 11039

3 The di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d s um m ary j udg m e nt i n fav o ro f N at i o nalU ni o n. Ithel d that benefit s w ere not pa yab l e becau se R i os Trop i cal es w as not a com m on c ar r i erunder t he poli c y. N at i onalU ni on r ec eived a j udgm entas a m at t erof l aw o n t he c o unt e r c l ai m s . M s . M c M ur r ayt i m e l y ap pe al e d. I I . D I S CUS S I ON W e rev i ew a g ra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , a p p l y i n gt h e s a me s ta n d a r da s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Noble E n erg y , In c. v. B i t u m i n ou s Cas. Co. , 529 F. 3d 6 42, 6 45 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 8) . Sum m ary j udg m e nti s pr o pe rw he n t he “plea d i n gs , the discov eryan ddiscl osu re m a terial s on f i l e, a n dan y a ffi d a vits s ho w t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o any m at e r i alfac ta nd thatt he m o va nt i s en titl edto j u d gm en t as am a tter of l a w . ” F ed . R . C iv . P . 56 (c) . “ In determ in i n g w h et h er a genu i n e i ssue as t o an y m ater i alfactexi st s, w e m u st view th e evide n ce i n th e li gh t m ost fav ora b l e t o th e no n m ov i n g pa rty.” F a h im v. Marri ot tHot elS ervs . , I n c. , 5 5 1 F .3 d3 4 4 , 3 4 8 -4 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T h is is ad iv e r s ityca s e in v o lv in gin te r p r e ta t io n o f aco n tr a c t e n te r e din T e x a s . T e x a s s u b s ta n tiv e la w co n tr o ls . B exar Cou n ty Hosp. D i st . v. F act ory Mu t . I n s. Co. , 475 F . 3d274 , 276 ( 5th C i r. 2007 ) . U n der T exas l aw , i n suran ce po l ic i e s a r ein t e r p r e t e da c c o r d i n gt ot he o r di nary r ul e s o f c o nt r ac ti nt e r pr e t at i o n. K el ley- Copp edge, I

n c. v. High lan d s I

n s. Co. , 9 8 0 S .W .2d4 6 2 , 4 6 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ). The c o ur t ’ s pr i m ary c o nc e r n i n c o ns t r ui ng t he po l i c y i s t o de t e r m i ne t he i nt e nt o f th e p a r tie s . Nat’

lUn i on Fi re Ins. Co . of P itts bu rgh, Pa. v. CBI Ind u s. , I n c. , 9 0 7 S .W .2 d5 1 7 , 5 2 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ). “T h e te r m s u s e dinth e p o lic ya r e g iv e n th e ir pl ai n , ordi n ary m ean i n g u n l ess t h e pol i cy it self show s t h at th e parti es i n t en ded th e term s to h a ve a d i ff ere n t, tech n i ca lm ea n i n g.” A m . Nat ’lG e n. I ns. Co. v. Ry an , 274 F. 3d 319, 323 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) (c i t i ng P u cket tv. U. S . Fi re Ins. Co. , 678 S. W . 2d 936, 938 (Tex. 1984) ) . W hen a t er m i s d efi n ed in the poli c y, t hat d e fin itio n co n tr o ls . Pro v id en t L ife & A cc id en t In s. Co . v . Kn o tt , 128 S. W . 3d 211, 2 1 9 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ); Tr i ni tyUni v e rs alI ns . Co. v . Cowan , 945 S. W . 2d 819, 823 (Tex.N o. 08- 11039

4 1 9 9 7 ). “ [I ]f

an i n su ra n ce co n tract i s su bj ect to m ore tha n on e rea s o n a b le i n t erpret ati o n , th e co n tra ct is a m b igu o u s a n dth e in te rp re ta ti onth at m ostf avors cov era ge for th e i n su redw i l lb e a d op ted . ” G rai n D ealersMu t . I n s. Co. v. McK

ee , 9 4 3 S .W .2 d4 5 5 , 4 5 8 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ). W e cl ose th i s li t an y of basi c r u l es by noti n g on e m ore. Th e fact of c onf l i c t i ng i nt er pre t at i ons by pa rti es i n l i t i gat i on doe s notpr oveam bi gui t y. Com m o nw e al t h L loy dsIns . Co. v . D o w ns , 853 S . W . 2d 104 , 110 (T ex. A pp . — F ort W or t h 1993, w r i tdeni ed) . I tm ay o nl y beev i denc e o f z eal ous advo c ac y. M s . M c M ur r aya l l e ge s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y l o o ki ng be yo nd the po l i c y’ s de f

i ni t i o n o f

“ c o m m o n c ar r i e r . ” I n i nt e r pr e t i ng t he po l i c y de f i ni t i o n, t he di st r i c tc our tnot ed thatTexas l aw s i m i l ar l y de f i nes “ c om m on c ar r i er s”as
“ [t] h ose i n t h e bu si n ess of carryi n g pa ssengers an d goods w h o h ol d them selves ou t f or h i re b y th e p u b l i c. ” Mou n tP leasan tI n d ep. S ch. D i st . v. Est ateof L i n d bu rg , 7 6 6 S .W .2 d2 0 8 , 2 1 3 (T e x . 1 9 8 9 ). T h e T e x a s c o m m o n -c a r r ie ra n a ly s is f ocuses on the bu si n ess of t ran sport ati on an d “w h et h er th e bu si n ess of th e en tity i s p u b l i c tran sp orta ti on or w h eth er su ch tran sp orta ti on i s ‘ on l y in ci d en tal’to its p ri m a rybu sine ss. ” S peed B oat L easi ng, I

n c. v. E l m er , 124 S. W . 3d 210, 213 (Tex. 200 3) ( em ph asi s in o ri gi n al) . Th e di st ri ctcourtconcl u dedt h at because t ran sport ati on w as m erely i n ci den t alt o R i os Trop i cal es’ s pri m ary pu rpose of e n te r ta in m e n t, it w a s n o t a co m m o n ca r r ie r . M s. M cM u rray contends that a r af t i n g t ri p n ecess ari l y i n volves t ran spor ta tion f

rom one p l ace t o an ot h er. E ven if such transportat i on i n corporat es enter t ai n m en t , the p ol i cy does not exclu de tr an sport ati on i n w h i ch e n te r ta in m e n ti s o ffe r e d . S h e e x p la in s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t in c o r r e c tly sup eri m poseda T e x a s com m on l aw requi rem en ton the pol i cy def i n i t i on of com m on carr i er – th at th e pri m ary pu rpose of t h e en t i t y be the t ran sport i n g of peo pl e o rgo ods . Further , t he si m i l ar i t i es bet w ee n t he pol i c y and com m on l aw defi n iti o n s s h o u ldn o t ov e rr id e th a t th e p o li cyh a s n o lan g u a g e li m iti n g“co m m onN o. 08- 11039

5 c ar r i e r” t o a n e nt i t y w ho s e pr i m ar y bus i ne s s i s t r ans po r t at i o n. Bec aus e t he pol i cy d e f

i ni t i o n c o nt r o l s i n c as e o f c o nf l i c t , s he a r gue s t hatw he t he rRi os T r o p ic a le s w a s aco m m o n c a r r ie ru n d e rT e x a s c o m m o n la w is im m a te r ia l. S ee Provi d ent L if

e & A cci d ent Ins. Co. , 128 S. W . 3da t2 19 ( di sapp rovi n g of pri or c ase l a w “t o th e exten t th a t th e l a n gu a ge [i n tho se ca ses ] su gg ests th a t it i s p rop er to di s r e ga r d d e f

i ne d t e r m s i n apo l i c y i n fav o ro f de f i ni t i on s n o te xp r e s s e d i n t he p a r tie s ’w r itt e n a g r e e m e n ts ”). W e di s ag r e e w i t h c h aract e r i z i ng t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a nalys i s a s l o o ki ng be y o n d t h e c o n t r a c t d e f i n i t i o n t o i m p o s e a r e q u i r e m e n t n o t i n c l u de d i n t he po l i c y. I ns t e ad , the c o ur tl o o ke d t o c o m m o n l aw f o ra s s i s t anc e i n i n t erpret i ng u n defi n ed ter m s w i t h i n t h e pol i cy’ s c om m on carr i er def i n i t i on . T h ere w ere s om e defi n i t i on s. T h e pol i cy defi n ed c om m on carri er as “ an y l i censed l an d, w ateror airc o nve ya nc e o pe r at e d b y t ho s e w ho s e o c c upa t i on o rb us i ne s s i s t he tran sp orta ti on of p erso n s for h i re.” It d i dn ot d efi n e, th ou gh , w h a t it m ea n s to b e inth e “o c c u p a tio n o rb u s in e s s ” o f “t r a n s p o r ta tio n ” fo rh ir e . W e a l so con cl u d e th a t un d efi n edterm s ar e n ot per s e a m b ig u o u s te r m s . U nde f i ne d p o l i c y t e r m s a r e g ive n t he i rpl ai n, ord i n ary m e ani ng, if s uc h a m e a n in gca n w ith s o m e cla r ityb e d e te r m in e d . A m . Nat’ l G en. I n s. Co. , 274 F. 3d a t 32 3 . A ccord i n gly, th e dist ri ct cou rt p rop erly l oo k ed to T ex a s com m on l a w to see kthe ord i n a rym ea n i n g o f th ese u n d efi n edt e r m s . Cf . T ena ska Fronti er Par t ne rs , Lt d. v . Sul l i v an , 2 7 3 S .W .3 d 7 3 4 , 7 3 7 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D is t.] 200 8, no p e t . ) (“ I n de t e r m i ni ng t he o r di nary m e ani ng o f a n und e f

i ne d t erm , T exas courts ha ve consu l t ed the t erm ’ s c om m on - l aw usag e, i n t erpret ati on w h en u s e dino th e rs ta tu te s , a n dd e fin itio n s ins e c o n d a r ys o u r c e s .”). W e ha ve al readyrevi ew ed the T exas l aw o n w h ic h t h e di st ri ctcourt pr o pe r l y r e l i e d. Tho ugh t he po l i c y de f i ni t i o n o f

c o m m o n c ar r i e rdi d no ti nc l ude t h e ph rase “pri m ary pu rpose, ” t h e pl ai n or ordi n ary m ean i n g of “ occupa t i on or bu si n ess”encom pa sses a pri m ary pu rpose requi rem en t . A n entit y’ s oc cup ati onN o. 08- 11039

6 or busi n ess i s t ran sport ati on f or h ire only if

t ran sport ati on i s th e pri m ary f u n ct i o n o f

t he e nt i t y i n q ue s t i o n. Tr ans po r t at i o n i s i nc i de nt alt o t he pr i m ar y pu rpose of en t ert ai n i n g raf t i n g pa rt i ci pa n t s. A ccor di n gl y, R i os Trop i cal es i s not a com m on carr i er un der th e pol i cy, an d the di st ri ctcourt properl y gran t ed sum m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of N a ti on alU n i on . H aving so f ou n d, w e neednot consi der ot h er pol i cy t erm s th at all eged l y barred coverage. In ad d iti o n t o den yi n g coverage un der t h e pol i cy, t h e di st ri ctcourtal so gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en ti n favor of N ati on alU n i on on coun t ercl ai m s f or b rea ch of con tract, bre a ch o f ex p ress an di m p l i edw a rra n ti es, b rea ch of th e d u ty o f g o o dfa ith a n dfa ird e a lin g , a n db r e a c h o f T e x a s ’ s p r o m p t p a y m e n t o f c la im s s ta tu te . T h e co u r t c o n c lu d e dth a t b e c a u s e N a tio n a l U n io n w a s co r r e c t in d en yin g b en efits u n d er th e p oli cy , it w a s en titl edto su ch j u d gm en t. M s . M c M u r r a ym a in ta in s t h e c o u r t e r r e din fa ilin gto g r a n t ju d g m e n t in h er favor on al lof

her coun t ercl ai m s. H ow ever, t h e onl y coun t ercl ai m f or w h i ch an y argu m en ti s m ad e on ap pea l i s h er assert i on t h at N ati on alU n i on vi ol ated Texas’ s pro m ptpaym entof c l ai m s st at ut e. A fai l ure t o pr ovi de m eani ngf ull egal o rfa c tu a l a n a l y s i s o f th e o th e ris s u e s co n s tit u te s aw a iv e r . Jaso n D . W. by D o ug la s W. v . Ho u s to n In d ep . S ch . D ist. , 158 F. 3d 205, 210 n. 4 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (pe rc ur i am ) . U nde rt he p rom pt p ay m e nto f c l ai m s pr o vi s i o n, t he r e c an beno lia b ilityu n le s s th e in s u r a n c e cla im s h o u ldh a v e b e e n p a id . SeeProgre s s i ve CountyMut . I

ns . Co. v . Boyd , 177 S. W . 3d 919, 922 (Tex. 2005) (c ons t r ui ng a s u b s ta n tia llys im ila rp r io rco d ific a tio n o f T e x a s ’ s p r o m p t p a y m e n t o f c la im s st atute) . A ccor di n gl y, j u dg m en ti n favor of N ati on alU n i on w as proper on a lle g a tio n s w ith re s p e c t t o th e p r o m p t p a y m e n t o f c la im s s ta tu te . We A F F I R M.