Legal Opinion
Continental Savings Association v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided June 17, 1985No. 84-1382PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBERT MADDEN HILL, Circuit Judge:
Continental Savings Association (Continental) sought indemnity for attorney’s fees and court costs pursuant to the terms of a fidelity bond issued to Continental by the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). The fees and costs were expended by Continental in defending an action for fraud brought by Fidelity Mortgage Investors (FMI). The district court denied relief, finding that Continental did not comply with the notice provisions of the bond. We reverse.
I
On May 13, 1974, FMI brought suit against Continental 1 in the state courts of Texas. FMI…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Dandridge v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Navarro Savings Assn. v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Heyden Newport Chemical Corp. v. Southern General Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1965
- Laura Marie Rhodes v. Chicago Insurance Company, a Division of Interstate National CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Klein v. Century LloydsTexas Supreme Court · 1955
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Canutillo Independent School District v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of PittsburghCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler, Etc., Cross-Appellants v. United States Fire Insurance Company, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Gatx Leasing Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
- Lafarge Corp. v. Hartford Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp. v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.