Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0699-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gunnar H. MERTZ, aka G. H. Mertz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-35257
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 23, 2016
    Gunnar H. Mertz, Pro Se
    William Truman Treas, Esquire, Attorney, Michael D. Breinin, Gerald Joseph Nielsen, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Nielsen Law Firm, L.L.C, Metairie, LA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gunnar H. Mertz, a.k.a. G.H. Mertz, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action seeking coverage under an insurance policy issued under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 of various items allegedly damaged in a flood. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review’ de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Mertz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he submitted the required proof of loss for the items he claims should have been covered under the policy. See Flick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 386, 394 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] claimant under a standard flood insurance policy must comply strictly with the terms and conditions that Congress has established for payment.... Congress, through a valid act of delegation to FEMA, has authorized payment of flood insurance funds to only those claimants that submit a timely sworn proof of loss.”); see also 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A (1), § VII (J)(4) (establishing a proof of loss and its required elements as a condition precedent to recovery under the policy).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mertz’s motion for reconsideration because Mertz failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.