Lisa Stephens v. Holcomb Logging, L.L.C., e , 668 F. App'x 592 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-60792      Document: 00513664726         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/06/2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT   United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 6, 2016
    No. 15-60792
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    LISA BEAM STEPHENS, Wrongful Death Beneficiary of Truman Edward
    Beam; PAMELA BEAM DRAKE, Wrongful Death Beneficiary of Truman
    Edward Beam,
    Plaintiffs - Counter Defendants - Appellants
    v.
    HOLCOMB LOGGING, L.L.C.,
    Defendant
    PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Counter Claimant - Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 1:13-CV-244
    Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    The plaintiffs initiated a garnishment action against Progressive Gulf
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 15-60792    Document: 00513664726     Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/06/2016
    No. 15-60792
    Insurance Company to collect on a Mississippi state court judgment. The
    plaintiffs appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Progressive.
    We briefly explain our reasons to affirm as to each issue.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the
    plaintiffs’ untimely motion for entry of default. See S&W Enters., L.L.C. v.
    SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 
    315 F.3d 533
    , 535–37 (5th Cir. 2003). The
    plaintiffs never requested an extension of the relevant deadline or explained
    the cause for delay. See 
    id. at 536
    .
    As correctly analyzed in the district court’s opinion, the state court
    judgments against Darryl Holcomb, James Holcomb, and IC Trucking are void.
    The plaintiffs had the burden to obtain an order on their motion to substitute
    Crystal Holcomb for the deceased Darryl Holcomb.          See Ridgway Lane &
    Assocs., Inc. v. Watson, 
    189 So. 3d 626
    , 630 n.4 (Miss.), reh’g denied (May 12,
    2016). They failed to do so. The final judgment against the deceased Darryl
    Holcomb is void under Mississippi law. See Wells v. Roberson, 
    209 So. 2d 919
    ,
    922 (Miss. 1968).
    The state court granted, with prejudice, the plaintiffs’ motion to
    voluntarily dismiss their claims against James Holcomb. See Hogrobrooks v.
    Progressive Direct, 
    858 So. 2d 913
    , 922 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). The district court
    properly held the judgment was therefore void as to him.
    The district court correctly held that the judgment was also void as to IC
    Trucking either because it was never served or because of Darryl Holcomb’s
    death. See Canal Ins. Co. v. Herrington, 
    846 F. Supp. 2d 654
    , 659 (S.D. Miss.
    2012); Tucker v. Williams, 
    7 So. 3d 961
    , 964–65 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
    The state court judgment is only valid as to Holcomb Logging, L.L.C.
    The district court did not err in concluding that Progressive’s policy does not
    cover the judgment against Holcomb Logging. For the reasons discussed by
    the district court, Holcomb Logging does not fit within the definition of
    2
    Case: 15-60792    Document: 00513664726     Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/06/2016
    No. 15-60792
    “insured” in Part I of the policy. The district court also correctly analyzed the
    mobile equipment and the MCS-90 endorsements.
    The plaintiffs re-urge the argument made in the district court that
    uninsured motorist coverage existed under the policy to cover the state court
    judgment.    Such insurance typically protects insured individuals from
    damages caused by others who are uninsured. See Jones v. S. United Fire Ins.,
    
    935 So. 2d 1127
    , 1129–30 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). Regardless of whether such
    coverage existed, the plaintiffs cite no case where uninsured motorist coverage
    applied in these circumstances. They also offer no argument explaining how
    such coverage would apply.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-60792

Citation Numbers: 668 F. App'x 592

Filed Date: 9/6/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023