Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31212 S u m m ary C al en da r CH RI S V W I EN TJES; J O AN N C W I EN TJES P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. AM ERI CAN BANKERS I NSURANCE COM PA NY OF FL ORI DA D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V
- 3762 B ef ore S M ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * A pp el l an t s C h ri s and Jo A n n W i en tj es app ealt h e di st ri ct court’ s grant of s um m ar y j udg m e nti n fav o ro f Appe l l e e A m e r i c an Banke r s I ns ur anc e Com pa ny of F l ori da on t h ei r cl ai m s f or ad di t i on al f

l ood proc eeds u n der t h e ir Stan da rd F l ood Insu ran ce Pol i cy. Th e d i st ri ctcou rtcon cl u ded tha tt h e W i en tj eses w ere n oten t i t l ed t o a dd i t i on alb en ef i t s d u e to thei r fai l u re to sub m i ta sw orn proof of l o s s wi t h r e s p e c tt o t h e s p e c i f i c d a m a g e s a ti s s u e . W e AF FI RM . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31212

2 T h e W i en tj eses’di spu t e w i t h t h ei r f l ood i n suran ce c arri er i s f or dam ages t o t h ei r M et ai ri e, L ou i si an a h om e cau sed by H u rri can e K atr i n a. Th ey received bo t h a n i ni t i ala nd as upp l e m e nt alp aym e ntf r o m Am e r i c an Banke r s . The W i e ntj e s e s t he n so ugh taddi t i o nalbe ne f i t s fo rda m ag e s t o t he i rf o unda t i o n a nd t o t h e hom e’ s ext eri or pl yw ood sh eathi n g. A m eri ca n B a n kers den i ed thi s l ast cl ai m . T h e W i en tj eses f i l ed su i tseeki n g i t s paym en t . R el yi n g on t h e W i en tj eses’ fai l ur e t o s ubm i ta s w o r n pr o o f o f l o s s o n t he f o unda t i o n and pl ywoo d s he at hi ng dam age, t he di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm enti n favorof A m er i c an Banke r s . The W i e ntj e s e s t i m e l y ap pe al e d. W e rev i ew a g ra n t ord en i a lo f su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , a pplyi ng t he s a m e s ta n d a r d a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Nobl e E n ergy, In c. v. B i t u m i n ou s Cas. Co. , 52 9 F. 3d6 42 , 6 45 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) . Sum m ar y j udg m en t is p r o pe rw he n t he “plea d i n gs , the discov eryan ddiscl osu re m a terial s on f i l e, a n d a n y a ff

i d a vits s ho w t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m at e r i alfac ta nd t hatt he m o va nt is e n titled to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w .” F e d . R . C iv. P . 5 6 (c). T h e W i en tj eses argu e t h at t h ey w ere not requ i red t o subm i ta proof of l oss pri or t o f

i l i n g sui ton thei r c l ai m s. I n i t i al l y, th e y a rg u e th at a press rel ease i ss ued by t he Feder alE m er genc y M anagem entA genc y on Sept em ber20, 2005, w aived t he pr oo f

- of

- l os s r equi r em entf orr ec ove r y o f

dam ages c ause d by H u rri can e K atr i n a. Th at FE M Apress rel ease st a te d t h at t h e N ati on alF l ood Insuran ce Progra m “h as w ai ved t h e usu alrequi rem en tt h at t h e pol i cyholder m u s t s u b m it a p r o o f-o f-lo s s a n d in s te a d w h e r e th e p o lic y h o ld e ra g r e e s , w ill re ly on a re p ort bythe cl a i m s adj u ster. ” The W i e n tj e s e s a ll e g e th a tt hi s s t at e m e nti s a n unc o ndi t i o nalw aive ro f t he ordi n ary proof

- of

- l oss requ i rem en t . I n t h ei r vi ew , a reportby the cl ai m s adj u st er i s a proper substi t u t e f or a s w orn proof

of l oss, even i f

t h e carr i er does not agree t o payp artof a sub m i t t ed cl ai m . Th u s, becau se t h e i n i t i aladj u st er’ s r eport f or t he i rho us e i nc l ude d r e pa i re s t i m at e s f o r founda t i o n a nd p l ywoo d s he at hi ngN o. 08- 31212

3 da m age, t h at r eport w ou l d sati sf y t h e proof

- of

- l oss requ i rem en tf or t h ei r c l ai m s, desp i t e t h e factt h at A m eri can B an kers deci ded not t o payt h ose es t i m ated a m o u n ts . Th e W i e ntj e s e s a l s o s ugg e s tt hatt he a dj us t e r ’ s r e po r ts at i s f i e s t he pr i m ar y pur po s e o f

a pr o o f o f l o s s , w hi c h i s t o pr o vi de no t i c e t o t he i ns ur e ro f t he c la im . I n m a k in gth is a r g u m e n t , t h e W ie n tje s e s a t t e m p t t o d is t in g u is h F E M A ’s Sept em ber2005 pre ss r el eas e f r om a FE M A m em or andum dat ed Au gust31, 20 05 , w h i ch w ai ved t h e proof

- of

- l oss requ i rem en tun der som e cir c um s t anc e s a nd e x te n d e dth e tim e fo r filin g a p r o o f o f lo s s u n d e ro th e r s . T h e W ie n tje s e s a d m it t h at t h e earl i er m em o di d n o t con t ai n a com pl et e w ai ver of t h e proof

- of

- l oss requ i rem en t . I n st ead , t h e A u gu stm em oran du m provi ded t h at t h e hom eow n ers ar e t o s ubm i ta pr o o f o f l o s s w he n t he y di s ag r e e w i t h a n a dj us t e r ’ s de c i s i o n: In the e ve n t a p oli cy h olde r d i sa gr ee s w i th the i n su rer’ s adj u stm en t, settl em en t, or p a ym en t of the cl a i m , a p oli cy h o ld e r m a y su b m i t t o t h e i n surer a proof

of l oss w i t h i n on e year f rom t h e date of

t h e l oss. T h e p roo f of l oss m u st m ee t t h e req u i rem en ts of V II. J . 4 of th e S F IP D w e l l i ng o r G e ne r al Pr o pe r t y For m . . . . I f t he i ns ur e rr ej e c t s t he p r o o f o f lo s s in w h o le o r in p a r t, th e p o lic y h o ld e rm a yfile a la w s u it agai nstt he i nsur erw i t hi n one yearof t he dat e o f

t he w r i t t en deni al o f a ll o rp a r t o f th e cla im . . . . T h e W i en tj eses argu e t h at t h e l aterpress rel ease t ak es pre ce d e n ce over t h e pri or FE M Am em oran du m . Y etthe W i en tj eses ackn ow l edg e tha tt h i s c ou rt h as previ ou sl y h el d that t h e A u gu st200 5 F E M Am em o di d n ot“ rend er p erm i ssive th e req u i rem en t t o fi l e a pr oo f of l oss pr i or to fi l i n g su i t. ” Marsei l les Hom eow n ersCon d o. A ss’ n , I n c. v. Fi d . Nat’

lI n s. Co. , 54 2 F . 3 d10 5 3 , 10 5 7 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). L ik e th e m e m o , th e p r e s s re le a s e s ta te s th a t a n a dju s te r ’ s re p o r t w ill sati sf y t h e ordi n ary proof

- of

- l oss requ i rem en t on l y “ w h ere th e pol i cyholder a gr ee s. ” T h e W i en tj ese s d i dn ot a g r e e w i th A m erican B a n k ers’ s adj u stm en t, s e tt le m e n t, a n dp a y m e n t of th e ir c la im s . A s s u c h , th e yw e r e re q u ir e dto s u b m it a ti m ely p roo f of l oss as a pr ere q u i sit e to fil i n g su i t.N o. 08- 31212

4 T h e W i en tj eses n ext al l ege t h a t if the p roof

- of

- l oss requ i rem en tha s not bee n w aived, i tdepr ives t hem of a m eani ngf

uloppo r t uni t y t o c ont es tA m er i c an B an kers’ s adj u st m en tof t h ei r c l ai m s. Th e W i en tj eses exp l ai n t h at t h e A u gu st 20 05 F E M Am em o requi r e s t he f i l i ng o f a pr o o f o f l o s s w i t hi n o ne y e aro f t he dat e o f t he l os s. An i nsur erc oul d s i m pl y s pend m or e t han one yearadj ust i ng an i n su red ’ s cl a i m s, the reb y lea vin g th e insu red w i th n o a ve n u e to ch a l l en ge i ts adj ust m ent dec i si ons . Thati s w hatt he W i entj es es c l ai m happened. Am er i c an B an kers di d n otm ak e a f i n alcoverage deter m i n ati on un tilM ay 9, 200 7, m ore th a n on e y ea r after the da te of l oss . T h a t d elay a l l eg ed l y m a d e iti m p oss ib l e to c om pl y w i t h t he o ne- yearpr oo f

- of

- l os s r equi r em ent , as t hey di d n ot k now t hat c ove r age f

or t hei r f

oundat i on and ext er i orpl yw oo d s heat hi ng dam age w oul d be de ni e d un t i lm o r e t han a ye ara f t e rt he l o s s o c c ur r e d. I ti s t r ue t hatt he W i e ntj e s e s di d no tr e c e ive no t i c e o f t he f i nala dj us t m e nt of thei rc l ai m s unti laf t ert he o ne- yeardeadl i ne f orf i l i ng a pr oo f

of l os s had pa s s e d. I m po r t ant l y, t ho ugh , t he y kne w o f t he i rdi s ag r e e m e n twit hthe pa ym e nt of t h ei r c l ai m s w el l bef ore t h at da t e. Th e i n i t i aladj u st er’ s r eport i n D ecem ber 2 0 0 5 s ta te dt h a t th e fo u n d a tio n d a m a g e w a s e x c lu d e df r o m c o v e r a g e u n d e rth e ir flo o d p oli cy . T h e W i en tj ese s a d m i t th a t th e i n i ti a l p a ym en t th ey rece iv e d in D e c e m b e r2 0 0 5 d idn o t in c lu d e a n ya m o u n t fo rfo u n d a tio n re p a iro rth e re p a ir o f t he e xt e r i o rplywoo d s he at hi n g. A c c o r di ngly, b y D e c e m be r2 00 5, t he W i en tj eses kn ew of a di sagreem en trega rdi n g t h e p aym en tof thei r cl ai m s. T h ey h a da m p le o p p o r tu n ityto file a p r o o f o f lo s s w ith in th e o n e -y e a rd e a d lin e . T h e W i en tj eses n ext argu e t h at appli cation of t h e one-year proof

- of

- l oss r equi r em entvi ol at es thei rcons t i t ut i onalri ght s, i ncl udi ng t hei rr i ght s t o e qual protec t i on an d d u e process . Th ey argu e t h a t F E M Aenfor ces t h e proof

- of

- l oss r e q u i r e m e n ta rb i t r a r i l y , g r a n t i n g wa iv e r s t o s o m e , b u t n o to t h e r s . S u c h F EM A c o n d u c t t r e a ts h o ld e r s o f fe d e r a llyf u n d e d flo o din s u r a n c e p o lic ie s d iffe r e n tly w i t h ou ta rat i on albasi s. M oreover, the on e- year t i m e li m i t ati on forf i l i n g a proofN o. 08- 31212

5 o f l o s s v i o l at e s due pr o c e s s b y f o r e c l o s i ng j udi c i alr e vi e w o f a dj us t m e ntde c i s i o ns m a d e m o r e th a n o n e y e a ra fte ra lo s s . F o rth e s e fa ir lyb o lda r g u m e n ts , th e W ie n tj ese s cite n o le g a l a u th o r ity . W e f i n d n on e t o sup port t h ese p roposi t i on s. T h e f ew di st ri ctcourt s t o ha ve reached sim i l a r i ssu es h a ve con cl u d ed tha t t h e p roo f- of- l oss re q u i rem en t d i dn ot viol a te th e co n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts o f t h e in s u r e d . See , e . g. , D u p uy v . Fid . Na t’l Pr o p . & C a s. Ins. Co. , N o. 07-4661 , 200 9 W L 825 55, at *3 n . 5 ( E . D . L a. Jan . 12, 2 0 0 9 ); How el lv. S t ateF

arm I n s. Cos. , 5 4 0 F . S u p p . 2 d6 2 1 , 6 3 3 (D . M d . 2 0 0 8 ); Sc h u m i tz k i v . Di r . , F EM A , 6 56 F . Su pp . 430 , 433 (D . N . J. 198 7) . Th e W i en tj eses h ave n otof

fered an ythi n g t o convi n ce us t o hol d otherw i se. Fi n a l l y, to t he e xt entt hatt he W i entj es es ar e a r gui ng t hatA m er i c an B an k e rs w a ived the proof

- of

- l oss requ i rem en tor t h at A m eri can B an kers or F E M As h o u ldb e e q u ita b lye s to p p e dfr o m e n fo r c in gs u c h r e q u ir e m e n t, th e ir a r g u m e n ts a r e fo r e c lo s e db ya re c e n t d e c is io n o f t h i s c o u r t. S ee Marsei l les Hom eow n ersCon d o. A ss’ n , I n c. , 5 4 2 F .3 d1 0 5 3 . W e hol d that t h e proof

- of

- l o ss requ i rem en tapp l i ed to t h e W i en tj eses’ c l ai m s . Tha tr e qui r e m e ntw as no tm e t . Con s e que nt l y, w e ne e d no ta ddr e s s t he W ie n tje s e s ’a r g u m e n ts w ith re s p e c t t o th e m e r its o f th e irco v e r a g e d is p u te . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.