Ace Property & Casualty Insurance v. Vegas VP, LP

MEMORANDUM **

Vegas VP, LP appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Ace”). The district court held that Vegas VP’s costs of delay were *233 not a covered peril under Exclusion S of the policy. We affirm.

As a threshold matter, we conclude that Ace’s submissions in response to the order to show cause demonstrate that the district court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653 , the court amends the pleadings nunc pro tunc to reflect that Vegas VP has one partner, Portland Corporation. Portland Corporation is a citizen of Texas, because it is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of Texas, and it maintains its principle place of business in Texas.

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Turning now to the merits of this case, Vegas VP advances three arguments in support of reversal. First, Vegas VP argues that Exclusion S applies only to a building that had a roof, windows, or walls at the beginning of the policy period. Because the building under construction (“the tower”) did not have a roof, windows, or walls during a…