Case Name: MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; et al, Defendants, Daneshjou Company, Inc.; M.B. Daneshjou, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-14
Citations: 210 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 06-50552
Parties: MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; et al, Defendants, Daneshjou Company, Inc.; M.B. Daneshjou, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 374–374

Head Matter:
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; et al, Defendants, Daneshjou Company, Inc.; M.B. Daneshjou, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.
No. 06-50552
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 14, 2006.
Joseph Jonathan Hlavinka, Engvall & Hlavinka, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee.
William Cyprian Dufour, Law Office of William C. Dufour, Trey L. Dolezal, Kasling, O’Toole, Hemphill & Dolezal, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants.
Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daneshjou Company Inc. and M.B. Daneshjou (collectively "Daneshjou") appeal the district court's summary declaratory judgment that Mid-Continent Casualty Company owes Daneshjou no duty to defend or indemnify. We affirm for the reasons given by the district court in its very thorough discussion of the issue of manifestation and the evidence regarding the same.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.