Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Acadia Insurance Company v. Hinds County School Di

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided September 17, 2014No. 13-60286, 13-60481Unpublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partEdith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority that the Ace American Policy covers only employment-related claims and join in Parts I — III and V of the opinion. Because the Cowards’ Amended Complaint does not allege an “occurrence” triggering a duty to defend under the Acadia Policy, I dissent from the majority’s holding in Part IV that Acadia owes such a duty to HCSD.

I

As the majority opinion correctly states, an occurrence is triggered only by accidental conduct. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Omnibank, 812 So.2d 196, 201 (Miss.2002). The majority finds the requisite allegation of accidental conduct in the Amended…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. USF&G CO. v. OmnibankMississippi Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. ScruggsMississippi Supreme Court · 2004
  3. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Logisticare Solutions, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
  4. Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford v. LipscombMississippi Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Evanston Insurance v. Neshoba County Fair Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2006

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API