United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JEFFREY U. BEAVERSTOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant USAA Casualty
Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc.
34). After reviewing the submissions of the parties, the
record, the law, and having heard oral argument, the Court
finds this motion is well taken.
about July 2, 2015, a house at 265 Adams Drive, Pine Apple,
Alabama that Plaintiff Jessica Tracy owned was damaged by a
fire (Doc. 1-1, p. 4). At the time of the fire, the house was
insured under a homeowners policy issued by Defendant. (Doc.
1-2). Mrs. Tracy obtained the homeowners policy five days
before the fire occurring. (Doc. 35-2, p. 3). Mrs. Tracy and
her husband Edward Tracy (“Plaintiffs”) claimed
to both have had items in the house damaged by the fire.
the fire occurred, Plaintiffs demanded the policy limits
available under Mrs. Tracy's homeowners policy for
Coverage A- Dwelling, Coverage C- Personal Property, Coverage
D-Additional Living Expense, and Additional Coverage- Debris
Removal. (Doc. 35-2; Doc. 1-4).
inspected the property and conducted its claim investigation
immediately following the fire. However, Plaintiffs delayed
providing, and sometimes failed to provide, Defendant with
certain information and documents requested during the
investigation of the claim and postponed their examinations
under oath. (Doc. 35-2, p. 4).
Defendant paid the policy limits of $241, 000 available under
Coverage A- Dwelling, advanced six months of additional
living expenses under Coverage D- Additional Living Expense,
and paid an agreed upon amount for Additional Coverage-
Debris Removal. Defendant did not pay the full benefits
Plaintiffs claimed under Coverage C- Personal Property given
that Plaintiffs did not provide an inventory and supporting
documentation to support said claim. (Doc. 35-2, p. 5).
Defendant also did not pay benefits over six months under
Coverage D- Additional Living Expense given that Plaintiffs
did not provide receipts to support any additional funds
being paid. (Id.).
suing, Plaintiffs did not request that Defendant provide any
of the following benefits under the applicable homeowners
policy or provide any documentation to Defendant to support
these various coverage categories: Outbuildings;
Trees/shrubs/lawns/; Special Refrigerator/Freezer Contents;
Home Locks; Pine Apple Volunteer Fire Department fee;
Electronic Media; Waiver of Deductible for Military Personal
Property; Reimbursement of any Premium Amount. (Doc. 35-2, p.
alleged that Defendant breached the policy of insurance and
committed bad faith by not paying more than it did and
purportedly delaying payment of their homeowners claim (Doc.
1-1). Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs'
claims for breach of contract (Count I), bad faith (Count
VI), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count III),
intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV), and
misrepresentation (Count V).
Plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition to
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42)
(“Response Brief”), they failed, under Rule 56,
Fed. R. Civ. P., to submit any affidavits, deposition
testimony, or other relevant and admissible evidence to rebut
Defendant's properly supported Motion for Summary
Judgment, and supported none of the allegations or conclusory
statements made in their Response Brief with specific,
pinpoint citations to the record as required by S.D. Ala.
Civ. R. 56. Thus, all material facts in the Narrative
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts section of
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment are deemed
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that “[t]he
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The
Eleventh Circuit has held that:
[s]ummary judgment is appropriate if the evidence before the
court shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. In making this determination, the court must
view all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor
of the party opposing summary judgment.
The mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat
summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to
an issue affecting the outcome of the case. The relevant
rules of substantive law dictate the materiality of a
disputed fact. A genuine issue of material fact does not
exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the
nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in
Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th
Cir. 2000)(quoting Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d
918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995))(alteration in original).
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to