Reno v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | 19-cv-387-jdp |
| Parties | JENNIFER RENO, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
After a fire damaged her home, plaintiff Jennifer Reno filed a claim under her homeowners insurance policy issued by defendant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company. Allstate agreed that the fire damage was covered by Reno's policy, but it paid only a portion of the losses that Reno claimed. Reno sued Allstate in state court for breach of contract; Allstate removed the case to this court. Allstate has moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 20.
The parties' dispute concerns the documentation that Reno submitted in support of her claimed losses. Reno neglected to send Allstate a list of the property that she said had been damaged in the fire as required under the policy. Allstate told her that the list was missing, but she didn't provide the list until after this litigation began. Because the missing list prevented Allstate from effectively investigating Reno's claim, Allstate didn't breach its contract with her by paying only part of her claimed losses. The court will grant summary judgment to Allstate and close this case.
The following facts are undisputed except where noted.
On May 5, 2018, Reno's home and personal property were damaged by a fire. Reno had a homeowners insurance policy issued by Allstate. She promptly informed Allstate of the fire damage, and Allstate began investigating the claim and adjusting the loss. Reno retained Miller Public Adjusters, LLC (which isn't a party to this lawsuit) to represent her in her insurance claim. Allstate concluded that damage caused by the fire was covered by Reno's policy.
On May 10, Allstate sent a packet of information to Reno that told her what to do so that Allstate could process her claim. In a letter contained in the packet, Allstate cited a provision of Reno's policy regarding her obligations after a loss. In addition to other requirements not at issue, the provision required Reno to give Allstate "a detailed list of the damaged, destroyed or stolen property, showing the quantity, cost, actual cash value and the amount of loss claimed" and, within 60 days of the loss, "a signed, sworn proof of the loss" that included, among other information, "the actual cash value and amount of loss for each item damaged, destroyed or stolen." Dkt. 25-1, at 21 (bolding removed). Allstate also enclosed two forms for Reno to complete and return to Allstate within 60 days of the fire, titled "Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss" and "Personal Property Inventory Loss." The letter described both forms and told Reno that they were necessary to assist Allstate in processing her claim.
Allstate adjuster Eric Brandt inspected the damage to Reno's property in June. He sent a list of damaged items and an estimated valuation of the damage to Reno via her representative, Miller Public Adjusters. Through Miller, Reno requested an extension to submit her proof-of-loss statement and supporting documents. Allstate gave Reno a 30-day extension from her July 5 deadline and paid her $17,336.37 for the undisputed losses and remediation,saying that it might make additional payments based on her proof-of-loss statement and supporting documents.
On August 17, Allstate wrote to Miller, saying that it hadn't received Reno's proof-of-loss statement or supporting documents and would not add any items to its inventory list at that time.
Miller adjuster Brian Balthazor sent an email to Brandt on December 3. Dkt. 46-2. In his email, Balthazor said that a loss inventory and invoices were attached, and he included a link that he said contained photographs of additional items for which Reno was claiming coverage. Dkt. 46-2. But Balthazor did not actually attach the loss inventory, and Brandt says that he was unable to open the link to the photographs. Reno doesn't dispute that Balthazor failed to attach the loss inventory, but she says that her attorney was able to access the photographs when he opened the link on an unspecified later date. Dkt. 38, ¶ 3. Whether Brandt was unable to access the photographs is disputed, although that dispute is ultimately immaterial.
Balthazor sent a completed proof-of-loss form to Allstate on December 31. Dkt. 46-3. He did not include any new supporting documents with the proof-of-loss form. Brandtresponded on January 14, 2019, saying that the proof-of-loss form didn't satisfy the policy's requirements because it didn't include the actual cash value of the property and because it "did not include the inventory list, photos, or original invoices from respective vendors for work performed." Dkt. 46-4. Brandt gave Balthazor 15 additional days to submit supporting documentation for Reno's additional claimed damages.
Balthazor responded on January 23 by re-forwarding his December 3 email to Brandt. Dkt. 46-5. The email again lacked a loss inventory. Brandt says that he was again unable to access the photographs through the link included in the email.
Brandt responded two days later to say that he had reviewed the information provided by Balthazor and that it contained no new information. Dkt. 46-6. He again quoted the policy's language quoted above regarding an insured's responsibilities after a loss. He said that Allstate would not grant any further extensions and that Reno's claim was closed. Neither Reno nor Miller provided any further information to Allstate before Reno filed this lawsuit.
Reno asserts three claims against Allstate for its refusal to pay the full amount of her claimed loss: (1) breach of contract; (2) bad faith; and (3) failure to make a timely payment as required by Wis. Stat. § 628.46. Dkt. 2-2.1 The court concludes that Allstate is entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The bad faith and statutory claims are contingent on the breach of contract claim, so those claims fail as well. See Brethorst v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2011 WI 41, ¶ 5, 334 Wis. 2d 23, 798 N.W.2d 467 (); Wis. Stat. § 628.46(1) ().
The insurance policy states that it is governed by the law of the state where the insured home is located, which is Wisconsin. And both parties rely on Wisconsin law, so the court will do the same.
Under Wisconsin law, a claim for breach of contract has three elements: (1) a contract between the parties that creates obligations from the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's failure to fulfill those obligations; and (3) damages flowing from the breach. Brew City Redev. Grp., LLC v. Ferchill Grp., 2006 WI App 39, ¶ 11, 289 Wis. 2d 795, 714 N.W.2d 582. The court agrees with Allstate that Reno hasn't adduced any evidence of the second element because Reno didn't support her claimed losses with enough proof to allow Allstate to investigate her claims.
To recover under an insurance policy, an insured must substantially comply with the terms of her policy, including requirements for proof of loss. Davis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 101 Wis. 2d 1, 303 N.W.2d 596, 599 (1981); RTE Corp. v. Md. Cas. Co., 74 Wis. 2d 614, 247 N.W.2d 171, 180 (1976). This standard requires the insured's actions to meet "the essential purpose of the contract." Davis, 303 N.W.2d at 599. The parties agree that the essential purpose of proof-of-loss requirements is to allow the insurer to effectively investigate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial