Chauvin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 August 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-30033.,No. 06-30946.,06-30946.,07-30033. |
| Citation | 495 F.3d 232 |
| Parties | Daryl CHAUVIN, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., Defendant. Caritha Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., Defendant-Appellee. Doris L. Huntley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Defendant-Appellee. Dani Babineaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee. Donald J. Haydel, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Defendant-Appellee. Richard Ganucheau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee. Joseph Moniz; Marie Moniz; Laurence Treigle; Edith Treigle; Scotty Lopez; Brandi Lopez; Keith Dwyer; Michael Collongues; Randall McCants; Debra McCants; Jamie Laureriro; Trudy Laureriro; Simeon Delacruz; Carol Delacruz; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., Defendant-Appellee. Daryl Chauvin; Cathy Chauvin, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Michael Garnett, Sr.; Michelle Garnett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Lee Sucherman; Ellen Sucherman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; John Berryman; Catherine Berryman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Gerald Cooper; Betty Cooper, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Anthony Smith; Ada Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Latoya Williams, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Terry Sampia, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Janet Labin, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.; Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest; Allstate Insurance Co.; Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co.; Encompass Property and Casualty Company; United Services Automobile Association; Standard Fire Insurance Co., One of the Travelers Property Casualty Companies; Auto Club Family Insurance Company; Massachusetts Bay Insurance, Defendants-Appellees. Kimberly Borne, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allstate Indemnity Co., Defendant-Appellee. Richard Maziarz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Auto Club Family Insurance Company (AAA), Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Richard L. Fenton, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, IL, for Allstate Indem. Co.
Judy Y. Barrasso, H. Minor Pipes, III, Susan M. Rogge, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, New Orleans, LA, for Allstate Indem. Co. and Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
Harry M. Reasoner, Marie Roach Yeates, Gwendolyn Johnson Samora, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, for Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
Seth Andrew Schmeeckle, Ralph S. Hubbard, III (argued), Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard, New Orleans, LA, Stephen E. Goldman, Wystan Michael Ackerman, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, CT, for Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest.
Richard Joseph Doren, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel Winthrop Nelson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, DC, Robert I. Siegel, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, New Orleans, LA, for Lexington, Ins. Co.
Dominic J. Ovella, Sean Patrick Mount, Daniel Michael Redmann, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Metairie, LA, for Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Empire Indem. Ins. Co. and Centre Ins. Co., Amici Curiae.
Christopher Raymond Pennison, Jay M. Lonero, Larzelere, Picou, Wells, Simpson & Lonero, Metairie, LA, for Republic Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., Amicus Curiae.
Remy Voisin Starns (argued), Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants in 06-31133.
Terrence J. Lestelle (argued), Andrea S. Lestelle, Jeffery Bryan Struckhoff, Lestelle & Lestelle, Metairie, LA, for Chauvin.
Christopher Weldon Martin, Levon G. Hovnatanian, Martin R. Sadler, Martin, Disiere, Jefferson & Wisdom, Houston, TX, for United Services Auto. Ass'n.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs are homeowners who sued their insurers, alleging that their homes were totally destroyed in Hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. They appeal the district court's order granting the defendant-insurers' motions to dismiss and/or motions for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Louisiana's Value Policy Law does not apply when a total loss does not result from a covered peril. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the district court dismissing the homeowners' claims.
Plaintiffs (the "homeowners"), both individuals and putative class representatives, are homeowners who allege that Hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita rendered their homes total losses. When their homeowner's insurers (the "insurers") refused to reimburse them for the full value of their homes as stated in their policies (the "agreed face value"), the homeowners filed suit against the insurers, alleging that they were entitled to the agreed face value pursuant to La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:695, Louisiana's Valued Policy Law ("VPL").2 All of the insurance policies cover damage caused by wind and rain, but contain a clause excluding coverage for damage caused by flood.3
The insurers filed Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings, arguing, inter alia, that (1) the VPL applies only to a total loss resulting from fire; and (2) even if the VPL extends to perils other than fire, the VPL does not allow full recovery when the total loss is not caused by a covered peril. In response, the homeowners argued that the VPL does apply to non-fire perils and that the VPL requires an insurer to pay the agreed face value when (1) the property is rendered a "total loss," even if the "total loss" is due to an excluded peril; so long as (2) a covered peril causes some damage, no matter how small, to the property.4
In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court granted the insurers' motions. Assuming without deciding that the VPL applied to non-fire perils, the district court first held that, regardless of whether the statutory language of the VPL is considered ambiguous, the homeowners' interpretation would lead to absurd consequences. The court concluded that the focus of the VPL was on establishing the value of the property in the event of a total loss, and was not intended to expand coverage to excluded perils. Thus, the court determined that the VPL does not apply when a total loss does not result from a covered peril.
The homeowners then filed the instant appeal. While this appeal was pending, the homeowners filed a motion asking us to certify the questions regarding the construction of the VPL to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which we denied.5 The homeowners also filed a motion requesting that we stay our decision in this case pending the appeal of two Louisiana state court decisions, which we also denied.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 12(c).6 The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).7 We accept the plaintiff's well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.8 The motion to dismiss should not be granted unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that he could prove consistent with the complaint.9
We also review a district court's determination of state law de novo.10 In the absence of a final decision by the state's highest court on the issue at hand, it is our duty to determine, in our best judgment, how the highest court of the state would resolve the issue.11
Because we conclude that the VPL does not apply to a total loss not caused by a covered peril, we assume for purposes of this opinion that the VPL applies to non-fire perils.
The homeowners maintain that they are entitled to the agreed face value of their policy under the VPL because their homes sustained some damage from wind, a covered peril, even though the total loss resulted from flooding, a non-covered peril. On the other hand, the insurers contend that the VPL does not require them to pay the agreed face value of the policy because the total loss was not caused by a covered peril.
In determining which interpretation of the VPL the Louisiana Supreme Court would likely adopt, we begin with the language of the statute and the rules of construction provided in the Louisiana Civil Code. Louisiana's VPL provides, in relevant part:
A. Under any fire insurance policy insuring inanimate, immovable property in this state, if the insurer places a valuation upon the covered property and uses such valuation for purposes of determining the premium charge to be made under the policy, in the case of total loss the insurer shall compute and indemnify or compensate any covered loss of, or damage to, such property which occurs during the term of the policy at such valuation without deduction or offset, unless a different method is to be used in the computation of loss, in which latter case, the policy, and any application therefor, shall set forth in type of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. Def. POW/MIA Accounting Agency
...under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." Chauvin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 495 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Johnson v. Johnson , 385 F.3d 503, 529 (5th Cir. 2004) ); Guidry v. Am. Pub. Life Ins. Co. , 512 F.3d 177, ......
-
Landry v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Co.
... ... , New Orleans, Louisiana, for Amicus Curiae, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company ... H ... L.L.C., New Orleans, Louisiana, for Amicus Curiae, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ... APLC, Metairie, Louisiana, for Amicus Curiae, Daryl Chauvin, et al ... John N. Ellison, Darin J ... 1 Cir. 6/24/94), 639 So.2d 453; Watts v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 574 So.2d 364 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ ... ...
-
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Harris County
...well-pleaded facts as true and [to] view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Chauvin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 495 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir.2007) (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 529 (5th Cir.2004)). In reaching its conclusion “the court may consider documents at......
-
Iraheta v. Thurman & Phillips, P.C.
...under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." Chauvin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 495 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 529 (5th Cir. 2004)). Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) where a......
-
Hurricane Insurance Litigation: More Than Wind Versus Water
...Id. at *23 (Cannizzaro, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). [48] Real Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Lloyd's of London, 61 F.3d 1223, 1228 (5th Cir. 1995); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Wasserman, No. 97-1803, slip op. at 2 (E.D. La. Nov. 17, 1997); Grice v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 359......
-
As Hurricanes End, Legal Storms Begin: the Insurance Battle Under State Valued Policy Laws
...should apply to a home destroyed by multiple perils—wind and flood—when the insured was only covered by a wind insurance policy), affd, 495 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2007), cert, denied, 128 S.Ct. 1075 (2008). 150. See Hensley v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Arkansas, 420 S.W.2d 76, 81 (Ark. 1967)......