Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20192
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee,
versus
BILLY CARL STEPHENS,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant,
RORY ROSS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
January 25, 1999
Before REAVLEY, POLITZ, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The facts of this case are set forth in detail in our original opinion, American
Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens, 130 F.3d 123 (5th Cir. 1997). In that opinion,
we reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of American
Home Assurance Company, concluding that the provision in the insurance policy,
limiting coverage for a therapist's non-sexual misconduct because unrelated sexual

misconduct occurred in the course of professional treatment, was against public
policy.1 Judge Reavley dissented, being persuaded that Texas courts would not find
the insurance provision to be contrary to public policy.2
On panel rehearing, we withdrew our prior opinion and certified the
following question to the Supreme Court of Texas:
Whether it is against public policy for an insurer to limit
coverage for a therapist's non-sexual misconduct because sexual
misconduct is alleged to have occurred in the same or related course
of professional treatment, even though sexual misconduct is
immaterial to the non-sexual misconduct claims asserted.3
The Supreme Court of Texas accepted our certification and answered the certified
question in the negative, concluding that Judge Reavley correctly applied Texas
law in his dissent to the original panel opinion.4 Therefore, in this diversity
jurisdiction action, being informed that the Supreme Court of Texas would not find
the insurance provision before us to be contrary to public policy, and because the
other claims of alleged error are without merit, the judgment of the district court
1Id. at 126-28.
2Id. at 128-30 (Reavley, J., dissenting).
3American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens, 140 F.3d 617 (5th Cir. 1998) (panel
rehearing).
4American Home Assurance Co. v. Stephens, No. 98-0396, 1998 WL 831250 (Tex.
Dec. 3,1998) (per curiam).
2