Tameka Blackstone v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-30351 Affirmed ] Judge: CES , Judge: PRO , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 01/08/2013 [12-30351]

Case: 12-30351

Document: 00512088166

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/18/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 12-30351
Summary Calendar

December 18, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

TAMEKA BLACKSTONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORP. et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
U.S.D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04604

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Tameka Blackstone purchased property in New
Orleans in October 2003. In August 2005, Blackstone incurred significant flood
damage to that property as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
Defendant-Appellee Chase Home Finance, L.L.C., and affiliated entities
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(collectively, “Chase”), held a mortgage on the property. From October 2003 to
October 2004, Defendant-Appellee Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (“Liberty”)

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-30351

Document: 00512088166

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/18/2012

No. 12-30351
had insured the property for flood damage pursuant to a “Standard Flood
Insurance Policy,” within the meaning of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968. See 42 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq. The policy had been purchased with
premiums paid by Chase to Liberty from an escrow account funded by
Blackstone.
Under the mortgage agreement, Chase could use the escrow funds to
purchase flood insurance at its discretion. After the first year of the mortgage,
Chase declined to continue coverage. While Chase did not expressly notify
Blackstone that it had declined to renew coverage, Chase provided her with,
inter alia, escrow account statements evidencing that it had ceased making
premium payments towards the flood policy.
Liberty notified Blackstone that the flood policy was up for renewal and
provided her with the specific date that coverage was set to lapse. However,
Liberty did not provide Blackstone with subsequent notice when the coverage
actually lapsed.
Blackstone never renewed coverage. She was without flood insurance
coverage at the time of the damage to her property resulting from Hurricane
Katrina.
In November 2010, Blackstone filed suit in state court against Liberty and
Chase. Blackstone alleged that Liberty had failed to notify her that Chase had
declined to renew coverage and, therefore, that Liberty should be equitably
estopped from denying her coverage. Blackstone also alleged that she had
detrimentally relied upon representations from Chase suggesting that her
property remained covered at the time of Hurricane Katrina.
Liberty and Chase removed to federal court in December 2010. They
moved for summary judgment in September 2011. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Liberty and Chase. Blackstone appeals herein.

2

Case: 12-30351

Document: 00512088166

Page: 3

Date Filed: 12/18/2012

No. 12-30351
After reviewing the record, the applicable statutory and case law, and the
district court’s summary judgment and reasoning, we AFFIRM the district
court’s judgment and adopt its analysis in full.

3