Battiste v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 23

RULING denying 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Allstate Insurance Company. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 5/24/12. (DCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CENTELIA BATTISTE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-CV-680
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment by
Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). (Doc. 14). Plaintiffs Dwayne
and Centelia Battiste (“Battistes”) filed an opposition (doc. 22) to which Allstate
did not reply. This Court’s jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For
the following reasons, the Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s property, situated at 2386 Ory Drive, Brusly, LA, was damaged
by Hurricane Gustav in September of 2008. Plaintiff immediately initiated her
claim with Defendant. The property was inspected on September 26, 2008.
Allstate determined that the structural damage to Plaintiff’s property amounted to
$8,575.94 and the damage to her contents totaled $308.35. Allstate applied the
$5,350 deductible and then paid the balance of $3,225.94 for the structural
damage and $308.35 for the content damage, totaling $3,534.29. (Doc. 22, at 2).
Allstate claims it did not hear from the Battistes again until it was served with this
suit in September of 2010. (Doc. 14-1 at 2). In February of 2011, Plaintiffs
presented Defendant with an independent assessment, which estimated the total

structural damage to be $36,583.39. (Doc. 22, at 2). In filing its motion, Allstate
contends the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that they had completed the
structural repairs and whether those repairs exceeded the amount of the
payments made by Allstate and their deductible. (Doc. 14-1 at 2).
A motion for summary judgment should be granted when the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmovant will bear the
burden of proof at trial, the moving party satisfies its burden by pointing out that
there is insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the nonmovant’s
claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). “If the moving party
meets the initial burden of showing there is no genuine [dispute as to] material
fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidence or designate
specific facts showing the existence of a genuine [dispute] for trial.” Allen v.
Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 204 F.3d 619, 621 (5th Cir. 2000). “Doubts are to be
resolved in favor of the nonmoving party, and any reasonable inferences are to
be drawn in favor of that party.” Evans v. City of Bishop, 238 F.3d 586, 589 (5th
Cir. 2000).
Allstate contends Plaintiffs have provided no evidence whatsoever that
they had expended any repair funds beyond what Allstate has already paid. In
2

essence, Allstate is saying the Battistes have not offered satisfactory proof of
loss. In their opposition, the Battistes attach receipts that show expenditures on
repairs to the home that exceed the amount paid by Allstate. (Doc. 22-3). They
claim that these have already been produced to Allstate. As the documents do in
fact show the Battistes spent more on repairs than they were given by Allstate,
the Court finds they have met their burden and summary judgment is
inappropriate at this time.
For these reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 14) is
DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 24, 2012.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3