Cont'l Sav. Ass'n v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 768 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Cont'l Sav. Ass'n v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 768 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clemtex, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company (ca5, 1987-01-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Clemtex, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Continental Savings Ass’n v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 762 F.2d 1239, 1245 (5th Cir.), reh’g granted in part on other grounds, 768 F.2d 89 (5th Cir.1985); St.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CONTINENTAL SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
84-1382.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 12, 1985.
768 F.2d 89
Lackshin & Nathan, Bernard Wm. Fischman, Lionel M. Schooler, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., Winstead, McGuire, Sechrest & Minick, Jeff Joyce, W. Mike Baggett, Dallas, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Goldberg, Rubin, Hill.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion June 17, 1985, 5 Cir., 1985, 762 F.2d 1239)

Before GOLDBERG, RUBIN and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

In the original panel opinion we held that Continental Savings Association (Continental), as insured, was not required to file a proof of loss under section 4 of the Conditions and Limitations Section of the bond in order to recover costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defending against liability for a loss or claim. 762 F.2d 1239, 1244. For the first time, USF & G now argues that in order for a claim or loss to be “a valid and collectible loss” under the bond for purposes of paragraph C, the insured must file a timely proof of loss under Section 4 and the attending discovery of loss rider to that section. So arguing, USF & G attempts to tie the notice of proof of loss provision to the notice of suit provision. We express no opinion on this issue as the argument, presented for the first time on rehearing, comes too late. See, e.g., Wells v. Rushing, 760 F.2d 660, 661 (5th Cir.1985). Rehearing is therefore denied on this point.

In point IV of its petition for rehearing, USF & G merely restates the argument that it made on the original hearing and that was rejected in the original panel opinion. 762 F.2d at 1244-45. The argument has, however, brought to our attention a misstatement of the effect of the bond’s pro rata provision discussed there. Accordingly, the fourth sentence of the next to last paragraph of the original opinion, 762 F.2d at 1245, is amended to state as follows:

In that case, the fees and costs would be prorated in proportion as the amount actually recovered exceeds the amount of the bond.

The petition for rehearing is therefore granted to that extent.

All other grounds for rehearing being without merit, the petition is in all other respects DENIED.