Simmons v. Brotherhood Mutual Ins

── Simmons v. Brotherhood Mutual Ins ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 15, 2026 Category: Private Civil Diversity Case: 25-30463 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 15, 2026 No. 25-30463 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Dawn Simmons; Ray Simmons; Bethany Darby, Individually & on Behalf of her Minor Child, MD; Bernard Darby, Jr., Individually & on Behalf of his minor child, M D, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant—Appellee, ______________________________ Bethany Darby, Individually & on Behalf of Her Minor Child, M D; Bernard Darby, Jr. Individually & on Behalf of His Minor Child, M D, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 6:23-CV-58, 6:23-CV-60 ______________________________ Case: 25-30463 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Willett and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* This insurance dispute arises from a tragic accident. Dawn Simmons, her three children, and a family friend were on their way home from Dawn’s high-school son’s out-of-town basketball game when another driver crashed into their car. All three of the Simmons children died, as did the other driver; Dawn and the family friend sustained injuries. The Simmonses and the parents of the family friend sued Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, the insurer of the children’s private school, contending that the school’s auto-insurance policy covers them. Brotherhood filed three motions for partial summary judgment, and the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on a single issue. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Brotherhood on the issue of coverage under the commercial multi-peril policy, denying the plaintiffs’ motion on the same issue. The court denied Brotherhood’s other two partial-summary-judgment motions. On July 30, 2025, it issued a document that it styled “Order,” in which it stated its rulings on the various partial-summary-judgment motions. The plaintiffs appealed, invoking our appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We must examine the basis of our appellate jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. Trent v. Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 387 (5th Cir. 2015). It is not clear whether the district court’s order disposing of several motions for partial summary judgment constitutes a final judgment. Final decisions are those that “end[] the litigation on the merits and leave[] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Marler v. Adonis Health Prods., 997 F.2d 1141, _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30463 Document: 59-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/15/2026 No. 25-30463 1142 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in, Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (2017)). “Ordinarily, a district court’s grant of partial summary judgment is a