Bayle v. Allstate Insurance Co.

As the movant for summary judgment, the insurance company had the burden of proving the applicability of any exclusion from coverage. It properly supported its motion for summary judgment with specific evidence that addressed the various items of damage incurred by the appellees' property and the cause of each item's damage, as well as the particular amounts it paid to the appellees for wind-damage to those items. At that juncture, the burden of production shifted to appellees to put forward evidence of specific facts sufficient to demonstrate the existence of uncompensated items of damage that were caused by wind, or of any deficiency in its quantum of the damages paid by the insurance company to indemnify the appellees for wind-caused damage. They failed to do so. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 09-30161, 08-16-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Published opinion

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

In this appeal, we are called on to address one of the recurring questions encountered in hurricane-related property insurance disputes that are governed by Louisiana law: When the insured and the insurer agree that both a covered risk and a non-covered or excluded risk caused some of the damage incurred by the insured property, which party must bear the burden of identifying the discrete item or items of property that were damaged and proving what portion of the damage was caused by the non-covered or excluded risk? Here, siblings William and Darlene Bayle*fn1 sued Defendant-Appellant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), which had issued the Bayles’ homeowners policy. They alleged that (1) Allstate failed to indemnify them adequately for wind-caused, structural damage*fn2 to their property, and (2) Allstate wrongly employed the “actual cash value” (“ACV”) of the property rather than the “building structure reimbursement” standard to calculate the dollar amount of structural damage caused by wind. The Bayles also claim statutory penalties against Allstate, alleging that it arbitrarily and capriciously refused to pay their wind damage claims timely.*fn3 The district court granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Bayles’ action.*fn4 We affirm.

Bayle v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal