Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the C ourth as determined that this opinionshould * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60219 Su m m ar y Cal endar

B Y R D & A S S O C IA T E S P L L C , fo r m e r lyk n o w n a s B y r d , G ib b s & M a r tin PLL C; I SAA C B YR D , J R. ; KAT RI N A G I BB S, P la in tiffs SA pp el l an t s v. E VA N S T O N I N S U R A N C E C O MP A N Y ; G I L S B A R , I N C ; J O H N L O WE S MI T H, D efen da n t s SA pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 3: 07c v00487

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * B yr d& A sso ci a tes P L L C , Is a a c B y r d , J r ., a n dK a tr in a G ib b s (“A p p ell a n ts”) f i l ed a c l ai m f

ordec l ar at or y j udgm entand i nj unct ive r el i ef agai nsttheirl egal
m al pra c t i c e i nsur er , E vanst on I nsur ance C o. ( “ E I C ” )

. App el l ant s c l ai m ed t hat EI C br e ac he d it s c o nt r ac t ualo bl i ga t i o n t o represent andi nde m ni f y t he m i n a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 26, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60219 Document: 00511036369 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2010N o. 09- 60219

A ppel l ant s al so hel d l egalm al pra c t i c e i nsur ance w i t h A m er i c an 1 N a ti on a lL a w ye rs In su ra n ce R ecipro ca l(“A N L IR ”)

. A N L IR w en t i n to 2 l e g a lmal p r a c t i c e s u i t
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e ds u m m a r yj u d g m e n tt o EI C, f i n di n g t h at t h e actun derly in gthe m al practi ce c l ai m fel lw i t h i n a pol i cy excl u si on , an d A pp el l an t s di d not di scl ose t h ei r kn ow l edg e of t h e actt h at f

orm ed th e b a s is o f th e cla im in th e ira p p lic a tio n fo rco v e r a g e . W e a ffir m .

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND A . Th e Bow i e Act i on Appe l l ant s r e pr e s e nt e d t he Bowi e f a m ilyi name d ic a lmalp r a c t i c e s ui t(t he

“M o nt f o r tAc t i o n” ) , fi l ed i n N o ve m be r1 99 9. The t r i alc o ur ti m po s e d a schedu l i n g order, i n st ructi n g t h e pa rt i es t o desi gn ate t h ei r expert s by D ecem ber 3 1 , 20 0 0
. W h en A p p ell a n ts fa i l ed to com p l y , t h e d e fen d a n ts f i l ed a m oti on to di s m i s s o rf

o r s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. Appe l l ant s ans w e r e d w i t h a m o t i o n t o e xt e nd t i m e t o desi gn ate e xp e rt s. Th e t ri alcourtden i ed A pp el l an t s’m ot i on an d gran t ed th e d e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n to d is m is s in M a r c h 2 0 0 1
. A pp el l an t s ap pea l ed t h e di sm i ssal t o t h e M i ssi ssi pp i C ou rt of A p p e a ls. T h e in te r m e d ia te co u r t r e v e r s e do n O c to b e r2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , B ow i e v. Mon tf ortJon es Mem ori al Ho s

pi t al , 850 So. 2d 12 10, 121 4 (M i ss. C t
. A pp . 200 2) , an d d en i ed
r e he ar i ng o n Janua r y 21 , 2 00 3. Butt he M i s s i s s i ppiSupr e m e Cour tr e ve r s e d t he i n t erm e d ia te co u rt a n da ffirm e dth e tria l cou rt’s d ism iss a l of th e M o n tf ortA cti on o n D e c e m b e r3 1 , 2 0 0 3
. Bow i ev . Mo ntf o r tJo ne s Me m ’lHo s

p. , 861 So. 2d 103 7, 1 0 4 3 (M iss
. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e M on t f

ortA ct i on p la in tif

fs f i l ed a l egal m al practi ce c l ai m against A p p ell a n ts on A p ri l29 , 20 0 4 (th e “B ow i e A cti on ”) , a n ds erv ed A p p ell a n ts w i th pr o c e s s s ho r t l y t he r e af t e r . Appe l l ant s t i m e l y no t i f i e d E I C o f

t he B o w i e Ac t i o n. 1 Case: 09-60219 Document: 00511036369 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2010N o. 09- 60219

r ec eiver shi p bef

or e t he f

i l i ng of t he B ow i e Act i on, and A N LIR di d nothave fu n d s a v a ila b le to co v e rA p p e lla n ts ’cla im
. W e n o te th a t p a r a g r a p h 1 (b b ) a n dth e P r io rA c ts E x c lu s io n w o r k in 2 conj u n ct i on t o cr eate a “w i n dow ” of coverage f

or act s t h at oc curred betw een F ebru ary 28, 200 3 an d F ebru ary 28, 200 4, so l on g as a reasona bl e person w o u ldn o t h a v e a n tic ip a te dacla im fr o m fa c ts th a t w e r e k n o w n to A p p e lla n ts
.
3 B . T h e E I C I n suran ce P ol i cy A pp el l an t s sub m i t t ed t h ei r ap pl i cat i on t o E IC f or l ega l m al practi ce in s u r a n c e o n N o v e m b e r1 3 , 2 0 0 2 , a fte rt h e in te r m e d ia te s ta te co u r t d e c is io n in th e M o n tfo r t A c tio n a n d b e fo r e th e M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c is io n . O n th is appl i c at i on, A ppel l ant s i ndi c a te d t hatt hey w er e unaw ar e o f any ac tt hatm ay r e as o nab l y be e xp e c t e d t o f o r m t he b as i s o f

acl ai m aga i ns tt he m . E I C i s s ue d t he i n su rance poli c y w i t h an ef fec t ive dat e o f

Febr uary 28, 2003. App el l a n ts
r e new ed t h ei rpo l i c y a ye arl at e r , e f fe c t ive Fe br uar y 28 , 2 00 4, a nd c o nt i nui ng t hr o ughFe br uary 28 , 2 00 5, a nd a ga i n i ndi c at e d t hatt he y w e r e unaw ar e of a ny b a s is fo racla im a g a in s t t h e m . U nd e r p a r a g r a p h 1 (b b ) o f t h e r e n e wa l p o l i c y , i f t h e a c t t h a t f o r m e d t he basi s of the cl ai m occ u rred bef ore t h e ef

fect ive pol i cy peri od, t h e pol i cy provi ded coverage so l on g as “ n o I n sured w as aw are of an y fact s orc ir cum st an ces f rom w h ich a reason able person w ou l d h ave an t i ci pa t ed a C l ai m . ” Th e pol i cy al so con tain ed a P ri or A cts E xc l u sion , w h i ch stated th a t th e poli cy d i d n ot a p p l y “to
a n ycla im m a d e a g a in s t t h e In s u r e da r is in go u t o f a n ya c t, e r r o ro ro m is s io n in professi on alservi ces of P ersonalI nj u ry i n professi on alservi ces h ap pen i n g pri or t o F ebru ary 28, 200 3. ” Th e pol i cy def i n ed an “A ct” as t h e “ perf orm a n ce of

or 2
om i ssion of a du ty b y th e In su red i n ren d erin g lega lad vice. ” Case: 09-60219 Document: 00511036369 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/26/2010N o. 09- 60219

4 C . A ppel l ant s ’C l ai m und ert he P ol i cy and t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s O r der A f t er A pp el l an t s notif

i ed E IC of

the B ow i e A ct i on , E IC den i ed A pp el l an t s’
c l ai m . EIC co nt ended t hatA ppel l ant s’fai l ure t o t i m el y c om pl y w i t h t he t r i al
c o u r t’s s c h e d u lin go r d e rin t h e m e d ic a l m a lp r a c tic e c a s e in 2 0 0 1 w a s th e a c t in qu est i on , an d theref

ore t h e actocc u rred bef ore t h e pol i cy t ook ef fect
. B ased on th is co n te n tio n , E IC a r g u e dth a t t h e p o lic y’ s ex cl u sion s ba rredA p p e lla n ts ’cla im
. A pp el l an t s di sagreed w i t h this inter pretat i on a n d f i l ed su i tf

or bot h decl arator y ju d g m e n t a n dinju n ctiv e re li e f. T h e d istr i ctcourt , i n an oralorder, gran t ed E IC ’ s m ot i on f or s u m m ary ju d g m e n t. T h e c o u r t firs t fo u n dth a t t h e re n e w a l p o lic yp r o v id e dth e a p p lic a b le
c o ve r ag e pe r i o d. The c o ur tt he n a ppli e d M i s s i s s i ppil aw and f o und t hatt he po l i c y w as no ta m bi guo us . The c o ur tc o nc l ude d t hatt he ac t i n que s t i o n w as t he A p p ell a n ts’erro r i n 20 0 1 an dfa u l ted A p p ell a n ts for fa i l i n g to d i sclose th i s fa ct. Appe l l ant s t i m e l y ap pe al e d. II. A N A L Y S IS W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n dr e v i e w d e novo a dis t ri ct
c o u r t’s a w a r do f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t. Fo r dMo t o rCo

. v . Tex . De p ’ tof Tra n s p. , 26 4 F
. 3d 493 , 4 98 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1)

. Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s pr o pe rw he n “t he pl ead i n gs, t h e di sco ve ry anddi scl osure m ater i al s on f i l e, an d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow th a t t h e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l fa c t a n d t h a t t h e m o v a n t is
en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t a s a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 (c )

. “A ge nui ne i s s ue o f m a te r ia l fa c t ex is ts w h e n th e e v id e n c e is s u c h th a t a r e a s o n a b l e ju r yc o u ld
r et urn a ver di c t f

or t he non- m ovi ng p a rty.” G a tesv. T ex. D ep’ tof Prot ect i ve & R egulat ory Servs. , 537 F. 3d 404, 417 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (c i t i ng A n d er so n v . L ib er ty L obby, I

n c. , 4 7 7 U .S

. 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (19 8 6 ))

. Case: 09-60219 Document: 00511036369 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/26/2010N o. 09- 60219

5 A pp el l an t s argue that t h e pol i cy i s am bi gu ou s, an d t h u s t h e di st ri ctcourt gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en tp rem aturel y. “A n a m bi gu i t y i n a n i n suran ce pol i cy e x is ts w h e n th e p o lic yca n b e in te r p r e te dto h a v e t w o o rm o r e re a s o n a b le
m ea n i n gs . ” J& W F

ood s Corp. v. S t ate F arm Mu t
. A u t o. I

n s. Co. , 723 So. 2d 550 , 5 5 2 (M i s s . 1 9 9 8 ) (c i t i ng Ins
. Co. of N
. Am
. v . D e

po s i tG uar . Nat
. Bank , 258 So. 2d 798 , 800 (M i ss. 197 2) )

. O f course, “ ‘ [t] h e m ere facttha tthe pa rt i es di sagree aboutt he m e ani ng o f apr o vi s i o n o f

ac o nt r ac tdo e s no tm ak e t he c o nt r ac t
a m b i gu ou s a s a m a tter o f l a w . ’” B u rto n v. Ch o cta w Co u n ty , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d1 , 5 (M i ss . 1997) ( quot i ng Cher r y v . An t hony, G i bbs , Sage , 501 S o. 2d 416 , 419 (M i ss. 1987) )

. I n ourcons t r uct i on of the di sput ed par t i c ul arpoli c y pr ovi si ons , w e m ay lo o k t o t h e d o c u m e n t a s a w h o le
. Ch err y , 501 So. 2d at419 (c i t i ng Hi n d s M ot or Co. v . He de r m an , 3 0 S o . 2 d7 0 , 7 2 (M is s . 1 9 4 7 )). W he n m or e t han one r eas onabl e i nt er pre t at i on e xi st s, w e “w i l lappl y a c o n stru cti on pe rm i tti n g re cov ery . ” J& W Fo o ds Cor

p. , 723 So. 2d at552 (c i t at i ons om i t t ed)

. Becaus e EIC at t em pt s t o e nf or c e a n exc l usi on t o t he poli c y, w e sh ou l d“con stru e th e p o lic ye v e n m ore stri n ge n tly.” I d. (cita tion om itted ). H o w e ve r , a bs e nta m bi gu i t y, “ ‘ i ns ur anc e po l i c i e s w hi c h a r e c l e ara nd
u n a m b ig u o u s a r e to b e e n fo r c e d a c c o r d in g to th e ir te r m s a s w r itt e n [a n dth u s ,] t h e p la in te r m s o f t h e in s u r a n c e c o n t r a c ts h o u l db e b in d in ga n dc o n t r o ll in g .’” S t ateF arm Mu t
. A u t o. I

n s. Co. v. Un i vers al Un d erw ri t ersI n s. Co. , 797 So. 2d 981, 985–86 (M i ss . 2 0 0 1 ) (qu ot i ng Ha rev. S ta te , 733 So. 2d 27 7, 281 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 )). S p e c ific a lly , A p p e lla n ts a r g u e th a t th e d e fin e dt e r m “A c t” in t h e p o lic yis
am bi guo us b e c aus e t he de f i ni t i o n ne c e s s ar i l y i m pl i c at e s ane gli ge nc e s t and ar d. A l t erna t ivel y, A pp el l an t s argue tha t t h e ir fai l u re t o di scl ose t h e 200 1 error Case: 09-60219 Document: 00511036369 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/26/2010N o. 09- 60219

6 s h o u ldn o t b a rre c o v e r yu n d e rth e p o lic yb e c a u s e , a t t h e tim e th a t t h e yo r ig in a lly ap pl i ed f

or c overage, t h ey w ere not aw are of an y fact s or ci rcum st an ces f rom w hi c h ar e as o nab l e pe r son woul d a nt i c i pa t e ac l ai m . Appe l l ant s po i ntt o t he t i m i ng o f

t he i nt e r m e di at e s t at e c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n t he M o nt f o r tAc t i o n t o a r gue t h a tw h e n t h e ya p p l i e df o ri n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e , t h e r e w a s n o b a s i s f o rac l a i m. A ppel l ant s’ar gum ent s ar e unavail i ng. A s note d a b o v e, t h e pol i cy def i n es an “A ct” as t h e “ perf orm an ce of

or o m i s s i o n o f

adut y by t he I ns ur e d i n r e nde r i ng l e ga l ad vi c e . ” Appe l l ant s a r gue t hata n “Act” unde r t he po l i c y c anno tha ppe n unt i la n a t t o r ne y i s a c t uall y f o und
ne gli ge nt by a c o ur t o r j ur y. Ther e f o r e , Appe l l ant s w o ul d hav e us f i nd t hatt he

“Act” i n q ue s t i o n o c c ur r e d when t he Bowi e Ac t i o n r i pe ne d; na m e l y, w he n t he M i ssi ssi pp i S u prem e C ou rtrei n st ated t h e di sm i ssalof t h e m edi calm al practi ce c la im in D e c e m b e r2 0 0 3
. A p p e lla n ts ’a r g u m e n t a v o id s th e p la in m e a n in g o f th e p o lic y ’ s te r m s . W e a gr ee w i th the distri ct cou rt t h a t A p p ell a n ts ’pr of f er ed alt er nat e de f

i n i ti on gra ft s ex tran eo u s l a n gu a ge on to p l a i n l a n gu a ge . T h e plain lan gu a ge de fi n i ti on of “A ct” as provi ded in the pol i cy d oes n otrequ i re a f i n di n g of

n egl i gen ce bef

ore a c ou rt
m a yfin dth a t a n “A c t” o c c u r r e d
. A s to A p p e lla n ts ’ a r g u m e n t th a t t h e P r io rA c ts E x c lu s io n s h o u ldn o t a p p ly be c aus e t he y w e r e una w ar e o f fac t s g i vi n g r i s e t o ac l ai m , w e no t e t hatt he
r enew alpoli c y i s t he poli c y ati ss ue h er e, an d w as ef fec t ive Februar y 28, 2004. In t h ei r app l i cat i on f

or r en ew al , A pp el l an t s r espon ded “ N o” w he n a s ke d whet h er t hey w er e a w ar e “ of any i nci dent , c i r c um st ance , er r or , om i ss i on, orper so nal i nj ur y w hi c h m ayg ive r i s e t o ac l ai m . ” Reg ar dl e s s o f w he t he rw e i nt e r pr e tt he 20 01 fail ur e t o s ubm i te xp e r t s o r t he 20 03 r e i ns t at e m e nt o f t he di s m i s s al o f t he Case: 09-60219 Document: 00511036369 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/26/2010N o. 09- 60219

7 M o nt fo r t Ac t i o n a s t h e fa c t s g iv i n g r i s e t o a c l a i m , b o t h o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t he ap pl i c at i o n f

o r t he r e ne w al po l i c y. Appe l l ant s fail e d t o di s c l o s e t he fac t s g ivi ng
r i s e t o t h e B o w i e A c t i o n i n t h e i rr e n e w a la p p l i c a t i o n a n d , u n d e rt h e p l a i n t e r ms o f th e p o lic y , E IC h a s n o o b lig a tio n to p r o v id e co v e r a g e . I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reasons setf ort h above, w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ct cou rt ’ s grant of
s u m m a r yj u d g m e n tt o EI C. A F F IR M E D
. Case: 09-60219 Document: 00511036369 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/26/2010