Court Opinion

ID: 21151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:41:56+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:00.375636
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                            _____________________

                                No. 00-10035
                              Summary Calendar
                           _____________________

                           AMOCO PRODUCTION CO.,

                                                                    Plaintiff,

                                    versus

                          HYDROBLAST CORPORATION,

                        Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                    versus

                   FIREMANS FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                Third Party Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                          (5:98-CV-264-C)
_________________________________________________________________
                            July 7, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Third     party    plaintiff-appellant,      Hydroblast    Corporation,

appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of third party

defendant-appellee, Firemans Fund Insurance Company, the main claim

having been settled previously.              Hydroblast contends that the

pollution    exclusion     endorsement   in    the   Firemans   Fund   policy

excludes coverage only for environmental-type injuries, and that,

consequently,    the     district   court    erred   by   holding    that   the

endorsement excludes coverage for the workplace accident in which

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Hydroblast employees were injured as a result of actual, physical

contact with a chemical cleaning solvent.

     Consistent with FED. R. CIV. P. 56, and having reviewed the

briefs and the summary judgment evidence, the summary judgment was

proper, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.

Amoco Production Co. v. Hydroblast Corp., No. 5:98-CV-264-C (N.D.

Tex. 10 Dec. 1999) (unpublished).

                                                    AFFIRMED

                                2