Case Name: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie J. PERKINS, Sr.; Willie J. Perkins, Jr.; Sheriel Perkins, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-22
Citations: 327 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 08-60993
Parties: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie J. PERKINS, Sr.; Willie J. Perkins, Jr.; Sheriel Perkins, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie J. PERKINS, Sr.; Willie J. Perkins, Jr.; Sheriel Perkins, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 08-60993.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2009.
John Michael Coleman, Wilkins, Stephens & Tipton, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Willie J. Perkins, Sr., Deshandra Lalayne Ross, Law Office of Willie J. Perkins Sr., Greenwood, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After reviewing the briefs, hearing oral argument, and relying on pertinent por tions of the record, we affirm the district court judgment denying defense coverage to Willie J. Perkins, Sr., William J. Perkins, Jr., and Sheriel Perkins, Appellants, by Allstate Insurance Company. However, we vacate the sanction award against Willie Perkins, Sr., because it was not based on wilful misconduct or bad faith and therefore was an abuse of discretion. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1410-11 (5th Cir.1993) (upholding a court's inherent power to sanction bad faith conduct); Pressey v. Patterson, 898 F.2d 1018, 1021 (5th Cir.1990) ("We have confined sanctions under the district court's inherent power to instances of bad faith or willful abuse of the judicial process.") AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART. See 5th Circuit Loc. Rule 47.6.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.