Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-03644/USCOURTS-alnd-5_12-cv-03644-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

BENNY STEWART, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) Case No. 5:12-cv-03644-HGD

)

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendant )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The above-entitled civil action is before the court on the motion for summary

judgment filed by defendant. (Doc. 20). The parties have consented to the

jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),

Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and LR 73.2. 

Plaintiff, Benny Stewart, commenced this action by filing a complaint against

Allstate Indemnity Company (Allstate) in the CircuitCourt of Lawrence County. The

action was removed to this court by Allstate on the basis of diversity of citizenship

and amount in controversy. In his complaint, Mr. Stewart alleges that he owns

property at 574 County Road 297 in Hillsboro, Alabama, and that his residence was

Page 1 of 20

FILED

 2014 Apr-03 PM 12:05

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 1 of 20
insured by a homeowner’s policy issued by Allstate. In Spring 2011, plaintiff

sustained damage to his property and submitted a claimfor insurance policy proceeds

to Allstate. Plaintiff avers that on or about August 1, 2011, Allstate sent adjusters to

perform an estimate of the cost of repair. However, plaintiff alleges that the estimate

failed to address a majority of the damage, and the payment tendered to plaintiff was

inadequate to repair the property. Plaintiff avers he then contacted Allstate to dispute

the adequacy of the payment and provided Allstate with a more accurate estimate of

the damage sustained, but Allstate refused further action. Plaintiff asserts causes of

action for breach of contract and bad faith. (Doc. 1-1, Complaint).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

“The 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (Dec. 2010). Rule 56(c) provides:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that

a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the

assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the

record, including depositions, documents, electronically

stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations

(including those made for purposes of the motion only),

admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

Page 2 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 2 of 20
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish

the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an

adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to

support the fact.

(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by

Admissible Evidence. A party may object that the

material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be

presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.

(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only

the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in

the record.

(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or

declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be

made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be

admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or

declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (Dec. 2010). 

Defendant, as the party seeking summary judgment, bears the initial

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and

identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes

demonstratesthe absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Clark v. Coats &Clark,

Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). A genuine issue of material

fact is shown when the nonmoving party produces evidence so that a reasonable

Page 3 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 3 of 20
factfinder could return a verdict in his favor. Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomms.,

Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007). If the nonmoving party fails to make a

sufficient showing on an essential element of his case with respect to which he has

the burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477

U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. Rule 56(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that if a party

“fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c),

the court may: . . . (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; [or]

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials – including the

facts considered undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it. . . .” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2) and (3). In reviewing whether the non-moving party has met

his/her burden, the court must stop short of weighing the evidence and making

credibility determinations of the truth of the matter. The evidence of the non-movant

is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Tipton v.

Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F .2d 994, 998-99 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations

and quotations omitted). However, speculation or conjecture cannot create a genuine

issue of material fact. Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir.

2005). A “mere scintilla of evidence” in support of the non-moving party also cannot

overcome a motion for summary judgment. Young v. City of Palm Bay, 358 F.3d 859,

860 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Page 4 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 4 of 20
In this case, Allstate submitted evidence in support of its motion for summary

judgment filed September 6, 2013. (See Doc. 20). Under Appendix II to the court’s

an Initial Order Governing All Further Proceedings (Doc. 4), plaintiff had until

September 27, 2013, to file a response to the summary judgment motion. No

response was filed by the due date. Plaintiff attempted to file a response to the

summary judgment motion on January 24, 2014, but the response was stricken as

untimely. (See Doc. 29, Order). Therefore, for purposes of the motion for summary

judgment, the evidence of the defendant is undisputed. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s residence is located at 574 County Road 297, Hillsboro, Alabama.

Allstate insured the subject property under a homeowner’s policy of insurance. 

(Doc. 20-2, Certified Copy of Allstate Policy). The residence was damaged by a

tornado. 

On or about April 29, 2011, plaintiff reported the damage to Allstate and made

a claim. (Doc. 20-3, Allstate Claim History Report, at Stewart 0134). At that time,

Allstate advised plaintiff of the name and contact information of the outside adjuster

who would be responsible for inspecting the property, Robert Stevenson. (Id. at

Stewart 0136). 

Page 5 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 5 of 20
On May 6, 2011, Allstate completed an inspection of plaintiff’s property and

determined that a follow-up inspection was needed to determine the structural

soundness of the dwelling. (Id. at Stewart 0138, Stewart 0140). Therefore, Allstate

requested an independent professional engineer to inspect the property and provided

a $5,000 advance to plaintiff for living expenses. (Id.; Doc. 20-4, Check for

Additional Living Expenses). On May 14, 2011, Allstate updated plaintiff on the

status of his claim and reminded him that an engineer would be inspecting his

property to determine if the home would be classified as a total loss. (Doc. 20-3 at

Stewart 0144). A few days later, Allstate received plaintiff’s contents list and repair

estimates for the items being reported as damaged and/or destroyed. (Doc. 20-5, 

Plaintiff’s Contents List). 

On May 23, 2011, Professional Engineer Bob Mott advised Allstate that

plaintiff’s home was irreparable. (Doc. 20-6, Engineering Report Prepared by

Compton Engineering). Upon receipt of this report, Allstate issued a check to

plaintiff in the amount of policy limits for the subject dwelling and other structures,

totaling $186,616. (Doc. 20-7, Payments for “Dwelling” and “Other Structures”). 

On June 8, 2011, Allstate advised Mr. Stewart that additional information was

needed on a number of the personal property items previously submitted. (Doc. 20-3

at Stewart 0160). Allstate requested either photographs, serial numbers, model

Page 6 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 6 of 20
numbers or brand namesto help identify these items. (Id.). At the same time, Allstate

inside adjuster, Valorie Harris, contacted Tri-Green Equipment to gather more

information on the three damaged tractors reported by plaintiff. (Id.). 1

On June 9, 2011, plaintiff advised Ms. Harris that a number of the personal

property items being claimed were used for business purposes. (Doc. 20-8, Harris

Depo., at 21-22; Doc. 20-3 at Stewart 0161). Mr. Stewart identified each of the items

from his previously submitted contents list which he used for business purposes. 

(Doc. 20-8, Harris Depo., at 66-67). Later that afternoon, Ms. Harris’ manager,

Dorothy Reed, followed up with Mr. Stewart on the personal property claim and

learned that he raised cattle for the purpose of selling the calves. Again, plaintiff

named each of the claimed items, including the tractors, which were used for business

purposes. (Doc. 20-3 at Stewart 0161). At that time, Ms. Reed informed Mr. Stewart

of the coverage limitation of $2000 for items “used or intended for use in a business.”

(Id.; Doc. 20-8, Harris Depo., at 67-68). 

Plaintiff’s policy of insurance contained the following limitation on certain

personal property: 

Limitations apply to the following groups of personal

property. If personal property can reasonably be

The repair estimate for the three damaged tractors provided byplaintiff was from Tri-Green 1

Equipment and totaled $24,018.24. (Doc. 20-9, Repair Estimates from Tri-Green Equipment). 

Page 7 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 7 of 20
considered a part of two or more of the groups listed

below, the lowest limit will apply. These limitations do not

increase the amount of insurance under Coverage

C-Personal Property Protection. The total amount of

coverage for each group in any one loss is as follows.

3. $2,000 - Property used or intended for use

in a business, including property held as

samples or for sale or delivery after sale,

while the property is on the premises. 

(Doc. 20-2, Certified Copy of Allstate Policy, at Stewart 0023) (emphasis added). 

Immediately after being advised of the business property limitation and in

direct contradiction to his previousstatements, plaintiff retracted his prior comments

and stated that he sold cattle as a hobby. (Doc. 20-3 at Stewart 0161; Doc. 20-8,

Harris Depo., at 68). At the conclusion of the call, plaintiff was advised that the

business limit would apply to any items “used or intended for use in a business” but

that he would receive full payment for his other personal property items. (Doc. 20-3

at Stewart 0161). The claim was then transferred to Allstate’s Special Investigative

Unit (SIU) for further investigation as a result of plaintiff’s inconsistent statements

concerning his personal property claim. (Id. at Stewart 0165).

On June 14, 2011, SIU adjuster Jim Neno contacted Mr. Stewart to explain his

role in the claim and take a recorded statement. (Id. at Stewart 0170). Mr. Neno

informed plaintiff that he was assigned to the claim as a result of plaintiff’s

Page 8 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 8 of 20
inconsistent statements concerning personal property items. (Id.). During the

recorded statement, Neno inquired about the use of several items included on

plaintiff’s previously submitted contentslist. (Doc. 20-11, Recorded statement taken

by James Neno, at 2-8). Plaintiff advised that the hayrack was used to harvest

between 65 and 70 acres of hay located on his son’s property and that this hay was

then used as feed for the cattle on his son’s farm. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff informed 2

Allstate that he used the three tractors on his son’s farm to avoid the necessity of his

son having to buy the same equipment. (Id. at 6). 

The following day, plaintiff informed Allstate that he had retained counsel and

provided a letter of representation from attorney James A. Cook, Jr. (Doc. 20-12,

Letter of Representation). On June 24, 2011, Neno sent correspondence to Mr. Cook

requesting that Mr. Stewart provide any paperwork that would support his purchase

and ownership of the equipment claimed, that he provide copies of his tax returns for

the past three years, and that he explain the FEIN which was registered as issued to 3

Mr. Stewart for the purpose of a “beef cattle” business. (Doc. 20-13, Correspondence

from James Neno). 

Plaintiff has provided sworn testimony that his son operates a business for the purposes of 2

selling calves and incorporated as Stewart Farms II, LLC on the property adjacent to his home. (Doc.

20-10, Stewart Depo., at 14-17).

“FEIN” stands for Federal Employer Identification Number and is issued to any company 3

to identify the company for tax and legal purposes. 

Page 9 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 9 of 20
When he received no response, Mr. Neno again sent correspondence to Mr.

Cook on July 6, 2011, and requested the same information. (Doc. 20-14,

Correspondence fromJames Neno). On or about July 14, 2011, Mr. Neno sent a letter

to plaintiff setting out his responsibilities under the insurance contract following a

loss. (Doc. 20-15, Correspondence from James Neno to Plaintiff). These

responsibilities included submitting to an examination under oath and providing

requested documentation in the investigation of the claim. (Id.; Doc. 20-2, Certified

Copy of Allstate Policy, at Stewart 0030). 

On or about July 21, 2011, Allstate retained the services of Alabama licensed

attorney, Mark Hart, to assist in the claim investigation and to conduct an

Examination Under Oath (EUO) of Mr. Stewart. (Doc. 20-3 at Stewart 0182). On

August 2, 2011, Mr. Hartsent correspondence informing plaintiff/plaintiff’s counsel

that he had been retained by Allstate to help complete the investigation of plaintiff’s

personal property claim. (Doc. 20-16, Correspondence from Mark Hart). 

Specifically, plaintiff was informed that he would need to sit for an EUO on

August 18, 2011, and provide the documentation which previously had been

requested by Allstate. (Id.). 

On or about August 10, 2011, Allstate was advised that plaintiff needed to

reschedule the examination under oath which had been set for August 18, 2011. 

Page 10 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 10 of 20
(Doc. 20-3 at Stewart 0186; Doc. 20-17, Correspondence from James A. Cook, Jr.,

to Benny and Kathy Stewart dated August 22, 2011). On or about August 17, 2011,

4

Mr. Cook advised Allstate that his client wasreluctant to sit for an examination under

oath and was considering withdrawing his personal property claim. (Doc. 20-3 at

Stewart 0187). 

On August 24, 2011, Mr. Hart sent a letter to Mr. Cook requesting dates for

plaintiff’s EUO and that plaintiff provide the documents which previously had been

requested by Allstate. (Doc. 20-18, Correspondence from Mark Hart). When he

received no response, Mr. Hart sent correspondence to Mr. Cook scheduling

plaintiff”s EUO for September 19, 2011. (Doc. 20-19, Correspondence from Mark

Hart). On September 16, 2011, Mr. Cook informed Allstate’s attorney, Mr. Hart, that

he was trying to convince Mr. Stewart to submit to the previously requested

examination under oath. In addition, Mr. Cook stated that he had made Mr. Stewart

aware that his claim could be denied if he failed to satisfy his obligations under the

contract. (Doc. 20-3 at Stewart 0189). Following this conversation, Allstate agreed

 The court notes that in the letter to Mr. and Mrs. Stewart, Mr. Cook advised them that if 4

they wished to pursue the claim further, they would need to associate Alabama counsel because he

was not licensed to practice law in Alabama. Mr. Cook stated he would discuss everything he knew

with anyAlabama attorneytheyhired and asked the Stewarts to contact him to discuss their preferred

course of action.

Page 11 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 11 of 20
to a two-week extension for plaintiff to sit for the EUO, and the EUO was set for

October 7, 2011. (Id. at Stewart 0189; Doc. 20-20, Correspondence fromMark Hart). 

On October 7, 2011, Mr. Stewart failed to appear for his examination under

oath. (Doc. 20-21, Coverage Opinion provided by Mark Hart). Thereafter, Mr. Hart

issued his coverage opinion recommending the denial of plaintiff’s personal property

claim, based on his breach of the condition precedent of the policy of sitting for an

EUO and providing requested documentation and substantial evidence that Mr.

Stewart intentionally made a material misrepresentation that the tractors were not

used for business purposes. (Id.). 

Allstate ultimately followed the recommendation of Mr. Hart and denied

plaintiff’s personal property claim on or about October 12, 2011, for the reasons set

out in Mr. Hart’s recommendation letter. (Doc. 20-22, Denial Letter). On

August 22, 2012, Allstate received a demand letter fromattorneyChristopher Leavitt,

asking that Allstate pay for the three tractors and attaching the Tri-Green Equipment

estimate. (Doc. 20-23, Correspondence from Christopher Leavitt). Allstate

responded on August 24, 2012, stating that it would not be addressing plaintiff’s

contents claim for the reasons previously set out in the October 12, 2011, denial

letter. (Doc. 20-24, Correspondence from Linda Berghult). Plaintiff then filed this

action on September 20, 2012. 

Page 12 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 12 of 20
DISCUSSION

Breach of Contract

Plaintiff alleges that Allstate breached its insurance contract with plaintiff by

“failing to pay amounts due and owing under the policy for structural damage to the

Plaintiff’s above-described property and failing to address the damage noted in the

independent estimate.” (Doc. 1-1, Complaint, at ¶ 17). With respect to the claim for

damage to the residence and its contents, plaintiff claims that Allstate “failed to

address the majority of the damage sustained to the home and the payment issued

thereon was inadequate to repair the property.” (Id. at ¶ 11).

In order to establish a breach-of-contract claim, a plaintiff must show “(1) the

existence of a valid contract binding the partiesin the action, (2) his own performance

under the contract, (3) the defendant’s non-performance, and (4) damages.” Ex parte

Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 799 So.2d 957, 962 (Ala. 2001) (citation omitted); State Farm Fire

& Cas. Co. v. Slade, 747 So. 2d 293, 303 (Ala. 1999) (citation omitted).

It is undisputed that there was a valid contract between plaintiff and Allstate.

(See Doc. 20-2). However, plaintiff has not performed under the contract and cannot

establish non-performance by Allstate when the conditions precedent to trigger such

coverage were never satisfied. An insurance company is entitled to require its insured

to provide documentation supporting a claim during the investigation process. See,

Page 13 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 13 of 20
e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Richardson, 2008 WL 4531765 (S.D.Ala. Oct. 9,

2008) (State Farm policy “obligated Richardson to cooperate with State Farm’s

investigation by, among other things, providing records and documentsto State Farm

upon request.”). Furthermore, an insurer’s “obligation to pay or to evaluate the

validity of an insured’s claim does not arise until the insured has complied with the

terms of the contract with respect to submitting claims.” United Ins. Co. of America

v. Cope, 630 So.2d 407, 411 (Ala. 1993). The Alabama Supreme Court stated that

“no case from this Court places on an insurance company an obligation to either

investigate or pay a claim until the insured has complied with all of the terms of the

contract with respect to submitting claims for payment.” Id. at 412. “Courts must

enforce insurance contracts as written and cannot defeat express provisions in a

policy.” Shrader v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 907 So.2d 1026, 1034 (Ala. 2005). 

The Allstate policy at issue contains the following provisions regarding the

insured’s duties following a loss:

Insuring Agreement

Section I Conditions 

3. What You Must Do After A Loss

In the event of a loss to any property that may be covered by this

policy, you must:

* * * * *

Page 14 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 14 of 20
d) give us all accounting records, bills, invoices and other

vouchers, or certified copies, which we may request to

examine an permit us to make copies. 

* * * * *

f) as often as we reasonably require:

* * * * *

2) at our request, submit to examinations under oath,

separately and apart from any other person defined

as you or insured person and sign a transcript of the

same. 

(Doc. 20-2 at Stewart 0030) (emphasis added). 

In Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Nilsen, 745 So.2d 264, 266-67 (Ala. 1998), the

Alabama Supreme Court held that submitting to an examination under oath was a

condition precedent to an insured’s recovery under the policy, where the policy

contained an express provision that the insured submit to an examination under oath

at the request of the insurer. The wording of the policy in Nilsen is very similar to the

policy at issue. Further, Nationwide made numerous requests that Nilsen appear for

an Examination Under Oath and that he provide a signed, sworn proof of loss that set

forth, among other things, receipts for additional living expenses and records

supporting the calculation of fair-rental-value loss pursuant to the terms ofthe policy. 

Although numerous requests were made, Nilsen failed to submit to an Examination

Page 15 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 15 of 20
Under Oath and failed to provide the requested documentation. The Alabama

Supreme Court stated:

An insurance company is entitled to require an insured to

submit to an examination under oath as part of its claims

investigation process. See Payne v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.

Co., 456 So.2d 34, 37 (Ala. 1984). Moreover, an insurer’s

obligation to pay or to evaluate the validity of an insured’s

claim does not arise until the insured has complied with the

terms ofthe contract with respect to submitting claims. See

United Ins. Co. of America v. Cope, 630 So.2d 407, 411

(Ala. 1993).

Id. at 267. It therefore found that Nationwide did not breach its contract of insurance

by failing to pay Nilsen’s claim. Id. at 269.

It is undisputed that Allstate made numerousrequests for plaintiff to appear for

an examination under oath and provide requested documentation concerning his

personal property claim. Plaintiff failed to comply with these conditions precedent

of the insurance contract. Once plaintiff obtained counsel, Allstate was obligated to

communicate through Mr. Cook. Allstate’s counsel sent numerous letters to Mr.

Cook and talked with himby telephone. Mr. Cook advised that plaintiff wasreluctant

to sit for the EUO. On September 16, 2011, Mr. Cook informed Mr. Hart that he was

trying to convince Mr. Stewart to submit to the previously requested EUO. In

addition, Mr. Cook stated that he had made Mr. Stewart aware that his claim could

be denied if he failed to satisfy his obligations under the contract. Despite the

Page 16 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 16 of 20
August 22, 2011, letter from Mr. Cook to the Stewarts advising that they would have

to obtain Alabama counsel, there is no evidence that Mr. Cook communicated this to

Allstate or ever advised Allstate that he was no longer representing Mr. Stewart. 

Further, plaintiff never advised Allstate that Mr. Cook was no longer representing

him or that he had retained other counsel with whom Allstate should communicate

until after Allstate had denied his claim. 

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with material terms of the insurance contract is a

breach of his obligations following a loss. Alabama courts have held the policy

provisions relied upon by Allstate to deny the claim are valid and enforceable, and

any duty Allstate may have owed to pay the claim for the damage to the tractors did

not arise until Mr. Stewart complied with these terms and conditions. 

Plaintiff also has claimed that Allstate failed to pay him enough to repair his

residence. However, Allstate paid plaintiff policy limits for the damage to his

residence and its contents after determining that the house could not be repaired. It

cannot be obligated to pay any more than the policy requires it to pay. See Farr v.

Gulf Agency, 74 So.3d 393 (Ala. 2011) (finding no breach of contract when insurer

paid policy limits in absence of any evidence that policy limits had been increased). 

Page 17 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 17 of 20
Bad Faith

Plaintiff alleges that Allstate exercised bad faith by intentionally refusing to

pay plaintiff’s claim in full despite knowing it had no arguable reason to deny

benefits under the policy. (Doc. 1-1, Complaint, at ¶¶ 20-25). 

In order to prevail on a bad-faith failure to pay an insured’s claim, the insured

has the burden of proving

(a) an insurance contract between the parties and a breach

thereof by the defendant; (b) an intentional refusal to pay

the insured’s claim; (c) the absence of any reasonably

legitimate or arguable reason for that refusal (the absence

of a debatable reason); [and] (d) the insurer’s actual

knowledge of the absence of any legitimate or arguable

reason; . . . .

National Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bowen, 417 So.2d 179, 183 (Ala. 1982). See also 

State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Brechbill, 2013 WL 5394444 (Ala. Sept. 27, 2013)

(same); Alfa Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 738 So.2d 815, 822 (Ala. 1999) (same). 

A “debatable reason” means “an arguable reason, one that is open to dispute or

question.” Bowen, supra.

The evidence is undisputed that Allstate undertook a thorough investigation

and hired a professional engineer to complete an inspection and assess the damages

to plaintiff’s home prior to reaching its claim decision. It paid plaintiff for living

expenses and paid policy limits for the residence and its contents. Allstate also

Page 18 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 18 of 20
sought documentation from plaintiff to substantiate his claim for the damage to the

tractors and conducted further investigation when plaintiff made inconsistent

statements regarding whether the tractors were used for personal or business

purposes. It attempted to obtain further documentation from plaintiff and schedule

an examination under oath on numerous occasions. When plaintiff failed to appear

for the EUO, it denied his claim on the basis of his failure to submit the requested

documentation and sit for an EUO, as well as for his apparent misrepresentation,

based on the unexplained inconsistencies in plaintiff’s statements about the use ofthe

tractors. As discussed above, Allstate did not breach its insurance contract with

plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff cannot satisfy the elements of a cause of action for bad

faith refusal to pay a claim. Further, Allstate also had a “reasonably legitimate or

arguable reason” for refusing to pay plaintiff’s claim for the damage to his tractors,

and plaintiff has presented no evidence that Allstate lacked a debatable reason or that

it had actual knowledge of the absence of any legitimate or arguable reason for

refusing to pay his claim. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is due to be granted as to all claims asserted by plaintiff and this action

dismissed with prejudice.

Page 19 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 19 of 20
A separate order in conformity with this MemorandumOpinion will be entered

contemporaneously herewith. 

DONE this 3rd day of April, 2014.

 

HARWELL G. DAVIS, III

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 20 of 20

Case 5:12-cv-03644-HGD Document 30 Filed 04/03/14 Page 20 of 20