Case Name: CX REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, formerly known as CNA Reinsurance Company LTD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC.; Raul F. Rivas, Individually; ARC Services LC, doing business as Allied Construction Services, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-21
Citations: 194 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 05-20806
Parties: CX REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, formerly known as CNA Reinsurance Company LTD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC.; Raul F. Rivas, Individually; ARC Services LC, doing business as Allied Construction Services, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
CX REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, formerly known as CNA Reinsurance Company LTD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC.; Raul F. Rivas, Individually; ARC Services LC, doing business as Allied Construction Services, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 05-20806
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2006.
Thomas Butler Alleman, Winstead, Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Paul Houston Lavalle, Texas City, TX, Mike Johanson, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this insurance coverage dispute, a policy holder and additionally insured parties (collectively the "insured parties") appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance provider. The insured parties dispute the district court's determination that (1) claims for the personal injury to an independent contractor's employee are excluded from coverage and (2) the insurance provider did not waive its coverage defense. The court has carefully reviewed the briefs and pertinent parts of the record and has found no reversible error of law or fact. Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.