Court Opinion

ID: 9467005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:35:29.861771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:05.980272
License: Public Domain

R. LANIER ANDERSON, III, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in
part:
I concur fully in Parts I and IV of the majority’s opinion. I also concur in Part II because I agree that Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc., 577 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951, 99 S.Ct. 2180, 60 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1979), is binding upon this panel. I also concur in all of Part III of the majority’s opinion except the majority’s conclusion that there was not an adequate disclosure of the security interest in the proceeds of the property insurance. I believe that the language-“Customer is required to furnish Bank with a copy of such an insurance policy containing a long form loss payable clause in favor of the Bank” — would adequately disclose to an ordinary lay person the fact that, in the event of a loss, the proceeds of the property insurance policy would be payable to the Bank. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that there was not an adequate disclosure of the security interest in the proceeds of the property insurance.