Accardi v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - WFBNA and HRIs 29 motion for summary judgment is denied; and Accardis 28 cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. So Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 9/24/14. (Coleman, Laurie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
JACK ACCARDI, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CV 13-0641 (LDW) (SIL)

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------X
WEXLER, District Judge
Plaintiff Jack Accardi, Jr. (“Accardi”) brought this action in state court
against defendants USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”), Homeward
Residential, Inc. (“HRI”), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“WFBNA”). Defendants
removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. Accardi settled
and discontinued the action as against USAA. Now, upon completing discovery,
WFBNA and HRI move, and Accardi cross-moves, for summary judgment under
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Briefly stated, the action arose from a fire that caused substantial damage to
Accardi’s property located at 10 Hampton Lane, Amagansett, New York (the
“Property”). At the time of the fire, WFBNA held a note and mortgage on the
Property; HRI serviced the note and mortgage; and USAA provided insurance
coverage on the Property. After the fire, Accardi filed a claim with USAA. The

2

claim was adjusted after arbitration, and USAA disbursed various payments.
Accardi claims that WFBNA and HRI breached the mortgage agreement by
withholding a portion of the insurance proceeds, purportedly preventing him from
completing repairs to the Property and resulting in him selling the Property for
substantially less than if the repairs had been completed.
Upon consideration of the supporting and opposing papers, the Court finds
that genuine disputes of material fact exist precluding the entry of summary
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (party seeking summary judgment must
demonstrate that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Accordingly, WFBNA and HRI’s motion for summary
judgment is denied; and Accardi’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied.
SO ORDERED.
___________/s/__________________
LEONARD D. WEXLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Central Islip, New York
September 24, 2014