Courteaux v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 20 defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument, currently set for January 29, 2014, is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 1/24/14. (sek, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EDITH COURTEAUX

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-5608

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY, RAND BEERS,
and W. CRAIG FUGATE

SECTION: J

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment submitted by
Defendants, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Rand Beers,
and W. Craig Fugate (collectively "FEMA") (Rec. Doc. 20), as well
as Plaintiff's Opposition thereto (Rec. Doc. 24). The motion is set
for oral argument on January 29, 2014. Having considered the
motion, the submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the
Court finds that oral argument is not necessary and, for the
reasons expressed below, that Defendant's motion should be DENIED.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
It is undisputed that Plaintiff purchased a Dwelling Form
Standard Flood Insurance policy from FEMA, and that this insurance
policy was in effect from October 12, 2011 to October 12, 2012. The
policy was in effect on August 28, 2012, when Hurricane Isaac
caused flood waters to enter Plaintiff's home and cause damage. It
is also undisputed that on December 26, 2012, Plaintiff submitted

1

a timely Proof of Loss ("POL") to FEMA for the amounts recommended
by

an

independent

adjuster

that

FEMA

employed

to

inspect

Plaintiff's home. FEMA paid Plaintiff a portion of the amount she
requested. Plaintiff alleges that subsequently, she made multiple
requests that FEMA investigate additional flood damage that the
original adjuster did not consider, but FEMA did not respond to her
requests.

Plaintiff

alleges

that

she

then

enlisted

her

own

contractor to document additional damages to be submitted to FEMA.
On or about April 2, 2013, Plaintiff sent FEMA an itemized proposal
prepared by her contractor. FEMA has not paid additional amounts to
Plaintiff, and on August 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed suit against
FEMA, seeking additional amounts to be paid under her policy.
PARTIES' ARGUMENTS
FEMA argues that the Plaintiff failed to submit a second POL,
an essential prerequisite to filing this suit, and that she merely
filed an itemized proposal prepared by her contractor. Therefore,
according to FEMA, Plaintiff's suit should be dismissed on summary
judgment. Plaintiff argues that the itemized list she submitted to
FEMA

was

merely

supplemented

her

a

claim

original

for

additional

claim,

and

flood

therefore,

recovery
she

was

that
not

required to submit a second POL before bringing suit.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show
2

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c));
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.2d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
When assessing whether a dispute as to any material fact exists,
the Court considers "all of the evidence in the record but refrains
from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence."
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d
395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008). The Court will examine the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naquin v. Fluor
Daniel Servs. Corp., 935 F. Supp. 847, 848 (E.D. La. 1996) (citing
United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). While
all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving
party, a party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory
allegations or unsubstantiated assertions. Little, 37 F.2d at 1075.
A Court ultimately must be satisfied that "a reasonable jury could
not return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Delta, 530 F.3d at
399.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party will
bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party "must come
forward with evidence which would 'entitle it to a directed verdict
if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.'" Int'l Shortstop,
Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263-64 (5th Cir. 1991)
(citation omitted). The nonmoving party can then defeat the motion
3

by either countering with sufficient evidence of its own, or
"showing that the moving party's evidence is so sheer that it may
not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in
favor of the moving party." Id. at 1265.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party
will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may
satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the
record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the
nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden
then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or
referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a
genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonmovant may not rest
upon the pleadings but must identify specific facts that establish
a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., id. at 325; Little, 37 F.3d
at 1075.
DISCUSSION
The circumstances of the instant case are similar to those in
Copeland v. FEMA, No. 03-2704, 2004 WL 325577 E.D. La. Feb. 18,
2004) (Barbier, J.). In Copeland, FEMA contested the adequacy of
the plaintiff's POL only because the POL failed to provide an exact
dollar amount of damages claimed. Id. at *2. This Court denied
FEMA's motion for summary judgment, finding that

because "the

plaintiff provided at least enough information to FEMA to evaluate
the merits of the claim," summary judgment was inappropriate. Id.
4

at *3. Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff originally submitted
a timely and valid POL and that FEMA paid certain amounts toward
satisfying that claim but has not paid all monies allegedly due.
Plaintiff then submitted a supplemental proposal for additional
amounts due under her claim and has sued to recover outstanding
amounts allegedly due. Plaintiff has submitted adequate information
for FEMA to evaluate the merits of her claims, and therefore,
summary judgment is inappropriate in this case.1
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that FEMA's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Rec. Doc. 20) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument, currently set
for January 29, 2014, is CANCELLED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 24th day of January, 2014.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

See also Reichert v. Fidelity National Property, No. 06-5448, 2007 WL
763706 (E.D. La. Mar. 8, 2007) (Zainey, J.) (finding that where the insurance
company challenged the validity of the plaintiffs' POL but had already paid some
of the money owed on the claim, it was clear that the plaintiffs submitted
sufficient information for the insurance company to evaluate the claim).

5