Crescent City Property, et al v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-30846 Affirmed ] Judge: HRD , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 12/07/2010 [09-30846]

Crescent City Property, seal09-30846 Document: 00511295391 Ca et : v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co

Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
November 16, 2010 N o . 09-30846 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

C R E S C E N T CITY REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION; W I L L I A M ALDEN, P la in t if f s - A p p e lla n t s , v. U S A A CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lle e . -------------------------------------W I L L I A M W. ALDEN, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t , v. U S A A CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lle e . ----------------------------------------A S H L E Y ALDEN, wife of/and; WILLIAM W. ALDEN, P la in t if f s - A p p e lla n t s , v. U S A A CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lle e .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court E a s t e r n District of Louisiana U S D C Nos. 2:06-CV-11420, 2:06-CV-11422, 2:06-CV-11424, 2:06-CV-11426, 2:07-CV-274

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-30846 Document: 00511295391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2010

No. 09-30846

B e fo r e DEMOSS, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* A p p e lla n t s appeal from: (1) the district court's grant of judgment as a m a t t e r of law on their lost-rents claims; (2) the district court's denial of their p o s t t r ia l Rule 59 motions on their lost-rents claims; (3) the district court's denial o f their bad-faith penalty claims ancillary to their lost-rents claims; (4) the jury's v e r d ic t for USAA on a separate bad-faith penalty claim, this one relating to U S A A 's delay in paying their insurance claims on one of their investment p r o p e r t ie s ; and (5) the district court's taxing of costs against them. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the following reasons: the C o u r t does not endorse portions of the language and rationale voiced by the d is t r ic t court in its assessment of the evidence on the lost-rent claims. That s a id , after reviewing de novo the evidence proffered by Plaintiffs to support their lo s t -r e n t s claims (even when viewed in the light most favorable to them), we c o n c lu d e that the evidence of damages was legally insufficient to support their c la im . Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting judgment as a m a t t e r of law on the lost-rents claims.1 Second, because we find no reversible

Pursuant to 5th Circuit Local Rule 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 Circuit Local Rule 47.5.4.

*

The district court's denial of Plaintiffs' posttrial Rule 59 motions related to lost rents need not be separately reviewed. This Court's review of a denial of a motion for new trial is "quite limited." Sibley v. Lemaire, 184 F.3d 481, 487 (5th Cir. 1999). Typically, to the extent a motion for new trial merely attacks the underlying judgment, the Court treats an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial as an appeal from the adverse judgment itself. Osterberger v. Relocation Realty Serv. Corp., 921 F.2d 72, 73 (5th Cir. 1991); see also 11 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PR O C E D U R E § 2818, at 192­93 (2d ed. 1995). Similarly, this Court has "specifically treated appeals of [Rule 59(e) motions to amend the judgment] as appeals of the underlying judgment when the intent to do so was clear." In re Blast Energy Servs., 2

1

Case: 09-30846 Document: 00511295391 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2010

No. 09-30846 e r r o r in the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on lost rents, it w a s not error to dismiss the ancillary bad-faith penalty claims predicated on the lo s t -r e n t s claims. Third, because the evidence was legally sufficient to support t h e jury's verdict rejecting Plaintiffs' bad-faith penalty claim for USAA's delay in paying damages with respect to the Breedlove Street property, we affirm the ju r y 's verdict. See Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am. v. Ernst & Young LLP, 542 F .3 d 475, 481­82 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 485 (5 t h Cir. 2008)). Fourth, and finally, the district court did not err in taxing costs a g a in s t Plaintiffs inasmuch as the Defendant was the "prevailing party." See F ED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1). A F F IR M E D .

Inc., 593 F.3d 418, 424 n.3 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Fletcher v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 2000); Trust Co. Bank v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 950 F.2d 1144, 1148 (5th Cir. 1992)). 3