Everest Natl Ins Co v. LJM Services Inc ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 01-20014
Summary Calendar
EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
VERSUS
LJM SERVICES INC; ET AL,
Defendants
LJM SERVICES INC
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston
(H-99-CV-3602)
July 11, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
LJM Services, Inc. (“LJM”), appeals the grant of summary
judgment in favor of Everest National Insurance Company
(“Everest”). Everest had filed an action for declaratory judgment
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
No. 01-20014
--2–
to determine its rights with respect to workers compensation
insurance. The district court held, inter alia, that an agent who
solicited business for Everest and wrote the policies through
Everest’s master general agent lacked the apparent authority to add
LJM as an additional insured.
The grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying
the same standard as the district court. Pratt v. City of Houston,
Texas, 247 F.3d 601, 605-606 (5th Cir. 2001).
Apparent authority in Texas is based on
estoppel. It may arise either from a
principal knowingly permitting an agent to
hold herself out as having authority or by a
principal’s actions which lack such ordinary
care as to clothe an agent with the indicia of
authority, thus leading a reasonably prudent
person to believe that the agent has the
authority she purports to exercise . . . A
prerequisite to a proper finding of apparent
authority is evidence of conduct by the
principal relied upon by the party asserting
the estoppel defense which would lead a
reasonably prudent person to believe an agent
had authority to so act.
Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 945, 949
No. 01-20014
--3–
(Tex. 1998) (quoting Ames v. Great S. Bank, 672 S.W.2d 447, 450
(Tex. 1984)). “It is also the rule that apparent authority is not
available where the other contracting party has notice of the
limitations of the agent’s power.” G.D. Douglass v. Panama, Inc.,
504 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. 1974). Certificates issued by the agent
specifically stated that they did not amend, extend or alter
coverage and that they were for information only and not to confer
any rights. See also Granite Constr. Co. v. Bituminous Ins. Co.,
832 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex.App.–Amarillo, 1992). LJM also had notice
of the agent’s limitations, see Douglass, 504 S.W.2d at 779.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.