Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 4 7.5 , the court has determined that thisopinion should not be published * and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forthin 5 TH C IR . R. 4 7.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60309

GOR DON RE I GS T AD ; KA RE N R EI GS T AD P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l ee s v. D AV I D PI LG ER ; I ndivi dua l l y anda s Pr e s i de nto f D e l t a Ti t l e a nd Es c r o w Co m p a n y ; DEL TAT I TL E AND ES CROW COM PA NY D efen d a n ts - A p p ell a n t s

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 1: 06- C V

- 859

B ef ore K IN G , 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 p p e lla n ts D a v idP ilg e r an dD elt aT itle a n dE s c r o w C o m p a n y(c o lle c tiv e ly

“ Pi l ge r”) a p p ealf

r om a j udgm enti n favorof G or don and K ar en R ei gs t ad ( “ Rei gs t ad s ” ) a r i s i ng o uto f c l ai m s f

o rl e ga lm al pr ac t i c e a nd n e gl i ge nt
m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n . T h e R e ig s ta d s a lle g e d th a t th e y r e ta in e d P ilg e r to h a n d le a ll aspects of

t h e cl osi n g of

t h e pu rchase of

realest ate i n O cean Sp ri n gs, M i ss i ss i ppi , and Pi l gernegl i gent l y fai l ed t o se c ure prope r t y i nsur ance c ove r age on t he pr ope r t y, c ausi ng t he R ei gs t ads t o have no i nsur ance t o c ove rt he dam age United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkThe partie s consente d to a trial before the United States MagistrateJudge pursuant to28 U.S.C. 1 § 6 3 6 (c)and

F e deralR

ul eo f CivilPro c e dure7 8

. Thedire cta pp e altothi sc ourti sprop er pursuantto28 U

. S

. C

. § 6 36 (c)( 3)

. 2 t o t he i r pr o pe r t y f

r o m H ur r i c ane K at r i na. Pi l ge r al s o r e pr e s e nt e d to t he R eigsta d s at th e cl osin g t h a t th e pro p erty w a s i n su red , w h en i n fact i t w a s n ot. T h i s diversi t y case w as t ri ed w i t h ou ta j u ry, an d the court entered f i n di n gs of 1 fa c ta n dc o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w . F o rt h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e dh e r e i n , w e a f f i r m. I. Bac kgr ound D e lta T itle a n dE s c r o w C o m p a n y w a s o w n e db yD a v idP ilg e r , ala w y e r . T h e R e ig s ta d s re ta in e dP ilg e rto re p r e s e n t t h e m o n th e clo s in go f a p r o p e r tyin O c e an Spr i ngs , M i s s i s s i ppi

. By l e t t e rda t e d Augus t1 5, 20 05 , Pi l ge r w r o t e t o t he R eigsta d s: “P l ea se ca l lu s w i th the n a m e of yo u r H om eo w n er’ s In su ra n ce A ge n t. W e m us tha ve pr o o f o f c o ve r ag e pr i o rt o c l o s i n g. W e w i l lc o l l e c ta nd p aya ny
n e c e s s a r yp r e m i u m s a t c l o s i n g . ” Go r d o n Re i g s t a d c o n t a c t e dh i s c a r r i e r , USAA, wh o i n f o r m e dM r . Re i g s t a dt h a ti td i dn o tp r o v i d e wi n d s t o r m c o v e r a g e . US AA
r e fe r r e d M r . Rei gs t adt o The In s ur anc e Bar n. M r . Rei gs t adc o nt ac t e d The I ns ur anc e Bar n a nd s po ke w i t h i t s ag e nt , K i m Rus hi ng. Al t ho ugh M s . Rus hi ng coul d n otspeci fica ll y r ecal lw h at s h e t ol d M r. R ei gst ad , t h e t ri alcourtm ad e a fa c tu a l fin d in gth a t M s . R u s h in gin fo r m e dM r . R e ig s ta dd u r in gth e ca ll “t h a t h is p r e m iu m s w o u ldb e co lle c te da t c lo s in g .” M s . Rus hi ng l at e rfax e d a n i ns t r uc t i o n s heetdi r e c t l y t o Pi l ge r . The i n st ructi on sheet st ated t h at “ [ n ] o coverage f or w i n dstor m can be p u ti n t o ef fect
u n til t h e s ig n e da p p lic a tio n a n d c h e c k fo r th e p r e m iu m is re c e iv e din o u ro ffic e .” A tt r i al , Pi l gerac know l edge d r ec ei ptof t he i nst r uct i on she et and adm i t t ed t hat h e di d n oti n f

orm t h e R ei gst ad s ort h ei r r ealest ate agent of t h e i n st ructi on s. The c l o s i ng t o o k p l ac e o n Augus t24, 200 5. The Reg i s t ad s ; N anc y D o r r o h, th e R ei gs t ads’r eal t or ; D avi d Pi l ger ; and C harl ot t e Far i ss e, t he s el l er ’ s agen t,Reigstad p aid $ 327, 000 for thehouse,and it was a cash sale. 2 3 att en ded t h e cl osi n g. T h e R ei gst ad s w ere t o del iver t o P i l ger t h e pu rchase pri ce f o rt he pr o pe r t y and as um r e pr e s e nt i ng o ne y e ar ’ s ha z ar d i ns ur anc e pr e m i um 2
s e t b y The I ns ur a nc e Bar n. Pi l g e r s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s ur e d t he Re i g s t ads t hat i n suran ce c o v e ra g e w a s i n pl ace on the h om e at t h e cl osi n g. Pil ger di d n ot di sput e t hathe m ad e t he s t at e m e ntt o t he Rei gs t ad s , b uthe t e s t i f i e d t hathe
c o u ldn o t r e m e m b e rs p e c ific s ta te m en ts. T h e R e ig s ta d s te s tifie dth a t t h e yw o u ld
n otha ve gon e f

orw ard w i t h the cl osi n g u n l ess i n suran ce c overage w as i n pl ace. O n t h e af

t ernoon of

A u gu st24, 200 5, H u rri can e K atr i n a w as i n t h e new s. Pi l ge rkne w t hatas t o r m w as pe ndi ng, but he c o ul d no tr e c al la ny de t ai l s a tt he t i m e o f t he t r i al

. O n A ugu s t25, 2 00 5, t he da y af t e rt he c l o s i ng, Pi l ge rs e ntt he Rei gs t ad s ’uns i gne d ap pl i c at i o n f o r c o ve r ag e andc he c k t o The I ns ur anc e Bar n,
w h i ch received t h e docu m en t s on A u gu st 26, 200 5. U pon recei pt of t h e pack age, Th e I nsu ra n c e Barn c al l ed Pi l ger , i nf or m ed hi m t hatt he appl i c at i on w as uns i gne d, c al l e d M r . Rei gs t ad , and fax e d M r . Rei gs t ada n a ppl i c at i o n whi c h he
s i gne d a nd r e t ur ne d t he s am e da y. By t he t i m e T he I ns ur anc e Bar n r e c e ive d t he si gn ed p ol i cy, i tcoul d n otbi n d coverage because H u rri can e K atr i n a h ad entered t he G ul f

of M exi c o e ar l i ert hatday. H urr i c ane K at r i na st r uck t he M i ss i ss i ppiG ul f C oas t on A ugust 29, 2005. The Rei gs t ad s ’ ne w ho us e w as s e ve r e l y da m ag e d b y H ur r i c ane K at r i na. Att he tr ia l, M r . R e ig s ta d , a c iv il s tr u c tu r a l e n g in e e r , te s tifie d th a t th e h o u s e w a s b u ilt
on st i l t s. Th e base el evati on w as abou tfi f t een ( 15) f

eet , an d the w aterl evel i n si de the f

i rstl evelof

t h e hou se w as ab o u t fo u r (4) feet
. Th eref ore, ap pr o xi m at e l y n i n et e e n ( 19 ) fe e to f w at e rw as i n t he Rei gs t ad s ’y ar d. The par t i e s s t i pul at e d t hat t he Rei gs t ad s s us t ai ne d da m ag e s i n t he am o untof $3 27 , 00 0. 00
. M r . Rei gs t ad t e s t i f i e d t hat , ba s e d o n w hat he s aw w he n he w e ntThe application does not specify the percentage of the deductible. Neither Pilger nor the Reigstads 3 disputethe amount of theded uctible. 4 t o t he ho us e a nd h o w t he w i ndow s blew out , he e s t i m at e d t hat9 5% o f t he d a m a ge “w a s d on e lon g b efore th e w a ter go t t h ere . ” I n t he i rappl i c at i o n of w i nds t o r m a nd h ai lc o ve r ag e , t he Rei gs t ad s s o ugh t
c o v e r a g e fo rth e h o u s e in th e a m o u n t o f $ 2 2 0 ,0 0 0 a n dco v e r a g e fo rco n te n ts in t he am ountof

$25, 000. There w as a 2% deduc t ibl e f ort he c ove r age. The t r i al 3
c our tr ej ec t ed t he R ei gs t ads’r eques tf ort he val ue o f

t he hom e, s t at i ng t hat

“ Pl ai nt i f

fs sho ul d notbe aw ar ded t he val ue o f t he hom e b ec ause i f i nsur ance had be e n pr o c ur e d, Pl ai nt i f fs w o ul d o nl y be e nt i t l e d t o a m ax i m um o f $ 22 0, 00 0, t he p oli cyl i m i ts. ” T h e R ei gst ad s h a d tw o w ri t t en est i m ates f or dam ages: one est i m ate f or $36 3, 473
. 08 w as based on repa i rs m ad e t o t h e hou se, bu tt h e est i m ate does not speci f y w h et h er w i n d or w atercaused t h e dam age; an ot h e r e sti m ate f or $1 17 , 39 1 w as b as e d o n da m ag e s c aus e d s pe c i f i c al l y by w i nd da m ag e . I n m ak i ng t h e dam ages cal cul ati on , t h e t ri alcourtst ated as f ol l ow s: T h e C ou rt f

i n ds t h at t h e B ai rd est i m ate (P

- 14) i s t h e bestevi den ce o f w i n d a n d/o rw in dd r iv e n r a in d a m a g e to th e h o m e . B a ir d ’s est i m ate of $11 7, 391
. 37 shou l d be en h an ced by the repl acem en tof t h e H VA C of

$51 76 (P-15) t o $12 2, 567
. 37. H ow ever, i ti s c l ear w h en t he Co ur t c o m p a r e s t he e s t i m a t e ( P- 1 4 ) a ndt he a c t ua lr e c e i p t s ( P15) w h i ch P l ai n t i f

fs expen ded , t h a t t h i s es t i m ate (P

- 14) w as not w h ol l y real i st i c. T h e c o u r tt h e n s t a t e dt h a tt h e “ w i n da n d w i n d d r iv e n w a t e r d a ma g e t o t h e h o me pri or t o an y f

l ood d am age” w as $16 3, 500 , ha l f of t h e st i pu l ated am ou n tof dam ages of

$327, 000. The cour taw ar ded t hi s am ountm i nus the deduct ibl e t hat
w o ul d h ave be e n du e und e rt he po l i c y, $ 4, 40 0, r e s ul t i ng i n a n a w ar d i n t he R e ig s ta d s ’fa v o rin th e a m o u n t o f $ 1 5 9 ,1 0 0
.5

Th e c our tadded t he f ol l ow i ng: Th e C ou rtnotes t h at t h ere w as no exp ertt est i m on y presented w i t h regard t o the w i n d versus f l ood i ssue. F u rt h er, t h e C ou rtdoes nothave bef

or e i tthe t er m s of

an i nsur ance pol i c y w hi c h w oul d have been i n pl ace i f i n suran ce h ad been procured

. F i n al l y t h ere i s very l i t t l e expl i ci tdocum en t ati on w i t h rega r d t o the c o r r e l ati on s bet w een B ai r d’ s w i nd dam age es t i m a te f ound i n ( P- 14) and t he ac t ual r ec ei pt s of

t he Pl ai nt i f

fs’( P- 15) f

orr epai rof

t he e nt i r e dw el l i ng. T h e C ou rtha s at t em pted t o cor rel ate t h ese dam ages t o the best of i t s abi l i t y. Pi l ge ra ppe al e d. I I . D i s cus s i on Pi l gerdoe s notc ont es tnegl i genc e o n appeal

. Pi l ger ar gues , how eve r , t hat i n or dert o r ec ove rdam ages from P i l ger , t he R ei gs t ads had t o pr ove t hathad Pi l ge rno tb e e n ne gl i ge nt , t he y w o ul d ha ve ha d i ns ur anc e c o verage fo rt he
s pe c i f i c da m ag e s t o t he i rpr o pe r t y. T o do t hat , Pi l ge rc o nt e nds t hatt he Rei gs t ad s h ad t o pr o duc e s o m e e vi de nc e o f t he t e r m s a nd c o ndi t i o ns o f t he i n suran ce pol i cy t h at w ou l d h ave been i ssu e d to them ha d P i l ger not been negl i gent
. Pi l gerar gues t hatt he o nl y e vi denc e pr es ent ed at t r i al of t he c ove r age
w as t h e app l i cat i on f or i n suran ce, an d i tw as i n suff i ci en t t o carr y t h ei r burden of pr oo f

. Altern at ively, Pi l gerc ont ends t hatt he aw ar d am ounti s exc es sive becau se t h e onl y rel i able est i m ate of w i n d d am age w as $ 1 1 7 ,391. 37, an d aft er subt r ac t i ng t he deduc t ibl e, t he j udgm ents houl d be r educ ed t o $ 112, 991. 37. T h e R ei gst ad s argu e t h at t h ey w ere s eeking the f u l lam ou n tof

dam ages t o t h e hou se because h ad t h ey kn ow n t h e accurate st atus of t h e i n suran ce c o ve r a g e o n t h e d a y o f c l o s i n g , t h e y wo u l d h a v e r e s c h e d u l e d t h e c l o s i ng and suff ered no l oss i n H u rri can e K atr i n a, as t h ey w ou l d n otha ve been t h e ow n ers o f th e h o u s e . E v e n th o u g h th e tr ia l co u r t d idn o t a w a r dth e R e ig s ta d s th e f u ll
am ou n t of da m ages, t h ey argu e t h at s u f f i ci en tevi den ce s u pp ort s t h e dam ages6

aw ard. Th e R ei gst ad s em ph asi ze tha ttheircl ai m s w ere ba sed on t ortt h eori es,
n otcontr actl aw , an d P i l ger’ s r el i an ce on insuran ce contractcon st ructi on cases i s m i s pl ac e d. A

. S t an d ardof

R evi ew M is s is s ip p is u b s ta n tiv e la w a p p lie s in th is d iv e r s itys u it. S ee S p ec ia lty R entalT

ools & S u

pp l y, L Pv. S h oem ak er , 5 5 3 F .3 d4 1 5 , 4 1 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e
r e v i e w f i n d i n go f

fa c tf o rc l e a re r r o ra n dc o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de no vo . C i ty of

New O rlean s v. Mu n . A d m i n . S ervs . , I n c. , 3 7 6 F .3 d5 0 1 , 5 0 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); F ED
. R. C IV
. P

. 52(a) ( 6) ( “ F i n di n gs of fact , w h et h er based on oralor ot h er evi den ce, m u st
no t be s e t as i de unl e s s c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us , and t he r e vi e w i ng c o ur t m us t give due
re g a rd to t h e tria l cou rt’s op p o rtu n ityto ju d g e th e w itn e ss e s’ cr e d ib il ity .”)

. U n d e rth e cle a re r r o rs ta n d a r d , “if th e [tr ia l] c o u r t’s a c c o u n t of th e e v id e n c e is pl ausibl e i n l i ghtof

t he r ec or d vi ew ed i n i t s ent i r et y, t he c our tof app ea l s m ay
n ot rev erse i t eve n tho u gh con vin ced th a t h a d i t b ee n sit ti n g a s th e tri er of fa ct, i t w oul d have w ei ghed t he evi denc e di f fer ent l y.” A n d e rs on ex re l

. An ders on v. Ca n ton Mu n . S ep a ra te S ch

. D ist. , 232 F .3d 450 , 453 ( 5th C i r. 200 0) (ci t ati on o m it t e d ). E v e n w h e r e th e r e a r e d if fe r e n tv ie w s o f t h e e v id e n c e , “ t h e fa c t fi n d e r ’s ch oice be tw ee n the m can n ot be cl ea rl y e rron eo u s. ” I d. (cita tion om itted ). B

. A n a lys is T o rec over f

or l egal m al practi ce un der M i ssi ssi pp il aw , “ a plai n t i f f m u st pr o ve by a prepo nde r anc e o f t he e vi de nc e t he e xi s t e nc e o f al awye r - c l i e nt rel ati on shi p, neg l i gen ce on t h e part of t h e l aw yer i n h an dl i n g h i s c l i en t ’ s af fai rs e n t r u s t e dto h im , a n ds o m e inju r yp r o x im a t e lyc a u s e db yth e la w y e r ’s
n eg l i ge n ce.” Bake r D o ne ls o n Be ar m an & Cal dw e l l, P. C. v . Mui r he ad , 920 So. 2d 440 (M i ss. 20 0 6 ). T h e M i ssissi p p icas es d i scu ssingl eg a lm a l pra c t i c e r equir e that t he pl ai nt i f

fs “ sho w t hatbutf

ort hei rat t or ney’ s negl i genc e, t hey w oul d have b ee n su cces sful i n the pr ose cu ti on or d efen se o f th e u n d erlyingaction

. ” P i erc e7

v. Cook , 99 2 S o. 2 d 6 1 2 , 6 1 2 (M i ss. 2 0 0 8 ) (ci tati on s om i tted). B a sed on th e facts of t hi s c as e, t he t r i alc our tm ade al egalc onc l usi on t hat“ Pi l gerc om m i t t ed l egal
m a l p ra cti ce.” T o est abli sh a c l ai m f o r negl i gen tm i srepresentat i on , a pl ai n t i f f m u stshow (1 ) a m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n o ro m is s io n o f fa c t, (2 ) th a t t h e r e p r e s e n ta tio n is
m at e r i al o r s i gnif

i c ant , ( 3) fai l ur e t o e xe r c i s e r e as o nab l e c ar e o n t he pa r to f t he def endant , ( 4) r eas onabl e r el i ance on t he m i sr epr es ent at i on, an d ( 5) dam ages as a d ir e c t r e s u lt o f th e re a s o n a b le re lia n c e . Pow el l v. Coh en R eal ty, I n c. , 803 So. 2d 1186, 11 8 6 (M i ss . C t
. A pp. 1999) (c i t i ng L ev en s v . Ca mp ell , 733 So. 2d 753 (M i ss . 1999) )

. The t r i alcour tal so m ade a l egalconc l usi on t hat“ Pl ai nt i f fs have est abli shed l i abil i t y f or negl i gen tm i srepresentat i on . ” O n a pp eal , P i l ger t ak es i ssue w i t h l i abil i t y based on the suff i ci en cy o f th e evi den ce and t h e am ou n tof da m ages. 1. Su f

f i ci en cy of

t h e E vi den ce T h e t ri alcourtrec ogn i zed that t h e R ei gst ad s had not produ ced an y pol i cy as e vi de nc e . The c o ur t , t he r e f o r e , r e l i e d o n t he s t at e d t e r m s o f t he M i s s i s s i ppi W i nds t o r m U nde r w r i t i ng Ass o c i at i o n ( “M W U A” ) a ppl i c at i o n t o f i nd t hatt he value of t h e pol i cy w ou l d h ave been $ 220 , 000
. B ased on the “st an da rd ded u ct i on i n m o s tpol i c i e s , ” t he co ur tal s o f o und t hatt he po l i c y am o untw o ul d ha ve ha d a 2% ded u ct ibl e, app l i ed ag ai n st t h e pol i cy value. W e f i n d n o cl ear err or i n t h ese f i n di n gs. P ilg e ra r g u e s th a t t h e R e ig s ta d s h a dto p r o d u c e e v id e n c e o f th e s p e c ific t e r m s a nd c o ndi t i o ns o f t he po l i c y o rpo l i c i e s w hi c h t he y s o ugh t
. The M i s s i s s i ppi
c a s e s u p o n w h ic h P ilg e rre lie s a r e in a p p o s ite

. S ee Pope v. S chroeder , 512 So. 2d 9 0 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ) (d is c u s s in gle g a l m a lp r a c tic e w h e r e la w y e rfa ile dto tim e lyfile
a n a p p e a l); Hi c kc o xv . Ho l le m an , 502 So. 2d 626 (M i ss . 1987) ( di sc u ssing l egal
m al pr ac t i c e c l ai m f

o rfai l ur e t o f

i l e s ui tw i t hi n l i m i t at i o ns per i o d)

. I n Wi l l i a ms8

v. Henson , 42 F. Su pp . 2d 62 8, 632 n. 6 ( N

. D

. M i ss. 199 9) , t h e di st ri ctcourtci t ed
a M is s is s ip p i ca s e fo rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t “th e m e a s u r e o f d a m a g e s re c o v e r a b le
a g a in s t a n a g e n t h a s b e e n h e ldto b e th e a m o u n t fo rw h ic h th e in s u r e rw o u ld h a ve be en l i a b l e h a d pr op er ins u ra n ce b ee n eff ected

. ” Id

. at6 32 n. 6 ( quo t i ng S i mpso n v . M-PE n t erpri ses , I n c. , 252 So. 2d 20 2, 207 (M i ss. 197 1) )

. N ei t h er Wi l l i am s n or S i mpson s upp o r t s Pi l ge r ’ s a r gum e ntt hatt he “ s pe c i f i c t e r m s a nd cond i t i on s of

t h e pol i cy” m u stbe presented i n t o evi den ce. Pi l ge rr e l i e s he av i l y o n At las Roof i ng M f g. Co. , I

nc . v. Rob i ns o n & Ju l i enn e, I

n c. , 2 79 So

. 2d 62 5 (M i s s . 19 73 )

. Pi l ge ra r gue s t hat“ [t ] he M i s s i s s i ppi S u prem e C ou rtm ad e i tcl e a r in t h e A t las R oof i ng d ecisi on tha t i n ord er to
rec ove r dam ages , t he pro spe c t ive i nsur ed has t o pro duce m or e pro of t ha n to
m erel y s t at e , a s t h e R ei gst ad s hav e don e, t h at t h ey w an t ed ‘ h u rri can e i n suran ce’
o rha d a ppl i e d f

o rapo l i c y t hr o ugh t he ‘ w i nd p o o l

. ’” I n At las Roof i ng , t he pl ai nt i f f, A t l as R oo f

i ng, al l ege d t hatt hei rage nt , R obi nso n & Jul i enne, had
n egl i gen t l y fai l ed to provi de ad equ ate f i re i n suran ce on i t s faci l i t y, an d as a consequ en ce, pl ai n t i f f ha d been un able t o col l ectt h e f u l lam o u n t of a f

i re l oss
su stain e d

. Id

. a t 6 2 6
. R o b in s o n & J u lie n n e a r g u e dth a t A tla s R o o fin gco u ld hav e r e c o ve r e d t he e nt i r e a m o untof t he i rl o s s f

r o m t he po l i c y t hatw as i s s ue d, b u t A tla s R o o fin ga c c e p te dle s s a n dfa ile dt o re c o v e rth a t lo s s s o le lyb e c a u s e it
n eg l ected to p u rsu e its cl a i m i n cou rt. Id

. a t 6 28. Atl as R oo f i ng c ount er ed by
ar gui ng t hati tw oul d nothave bee n a b l e t o r ec ove runder t he pol i c y t hatw as is s u e d

. I

d. The c o ur ti ndi c at e d t he di f f i cul t y of

de t e r m i ni ng t hati s s ue i n t he absen ce of

t h e i n surer w h o i ssued t h e pol i cy obt ai n ed byA t l as R oof i n g, becau se “t h e r e [w a s ] n o w a yo f k n o w in gw h a t it s p o s itio n w o u ldb e n o rw h a t d e fe n s e s it
w ou l di n terp ose . ” Id

. The c o ur t , t he r e f o r e , de c l i ne d t o de t e r m i ne i f t he a bs e nt in s u r e rw a s , in fa c t, lia b le fo rth e fu ll a m o u n t o f s u s ta in e dd a m a g e s . S e eid

.9

The c o ur tt he n no t e d t hatf ive y e ar s had l ap s e d s i nc e t he i s s uanc e o f t he p oli cy w i th n o objectio n . S e ei d. at629. The c our tt her ef or e c onc l uded t hat

“ u pon t h e w h ol e rec ord t h at A t l as fai l ed t o m eet t h e bu rden w h i ch rest ed u pon i tt o e s t ab l i s h b y e vi de nc e tha tit [ s ] l o s s w as t he r e s ul to f ne gl i ge nc e upo n t he p a rt of [R ob i n son & Ju l i en n e]. ” Id

. In t h i s c ase, t h e re w as no exis t i n g pol i cy on the R ei gst ad s’property, so t h ere i s no argu m en tt h at an exi st i n g pol i cy provi ded t h e requi si t e coverage. H ere, i ti s un di spu t ed that t h ere w as no w i n dstor m coverage. Fu rt h er, P i l ger
s p e c ific a l l y t o ldth e R e ig s ta d s a t t h e clo s in gth a t in s u r a n c e co v e r a g e w a s in pl ac e , al t ho ugh t he r e w as no c o ve r ag e . The c o ur t ’ s ho l di ng i n A t las R oof i ng does
n o t s u p p o r t P ilg e r ’ s a r g u m e n t. A t t r ia l, th e R e ig s t a d s h a d to e s ta b lis h th e ir
c l ai m s b y a pr e po nde r anc e o f t he ev i den ce, a nd t he M W U A app l i c at i o n a nd t es t i m ony attr i alare s uf f i c i entto suppor ta f

i ndi ng on t he am ountof c ove r age t h a tw o u ld h a v e b e e n in p la c e b u tfo rP il g e r ’s n e g li g e n c e . T h e tr ia l c o u r t ’s
a s s e s s m e n t o f th e e v id e n c e is n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s .

2. A m ou n tof

D am ages T h e t ri alcourtdeter m i n ed that t h e val u e o f da m ages w as $15 9, 100
. Pil ger a rg u es th a t t h e m a xim u m am ou n t of da m a ge s th a t cou l dh a ve be en aw a rd ed to t h e R ei gst ad s w as $11 2, 991
. 37, t h e am ou n tof t h e w i n d d am age esti m ate, $11 7, 391
. 37, m i n u s t h e $4, 400 ded u ct ibl e. I n m ak i n g t h e dam a g es de t e r m i nat i o n, t he t r i alco ur tco ns i de r e d t he R e i gs t ad s ’e xhibits ubs t ant i at i ng t h e R ei gst ad s’act u alexpen di t u res f or r epa i rs. B ecau se t h i s l i stof expen di t u res di d n oti n di cat e w h et h er dam ages w ere cau sed by w i n d or f l ood, t h e courtal so con sider ed the esti m a te for on l y w i n d d a m a ge . M r. R eigsta dalso testi fi ed tha t, b a sed on w h a t he saw w h en h e w en t to the h ou se a n dh ow the w i n d ow s blew ou t, h e e s tim a te dth a t 9 5 % o f th e d a m a g e “w a s d o n e lo n gb e fo r e th e w a te rg o t t h e r e .”10

T h e courtconsi dered B ai rd’ s es t i m ate of w i n d d am age to be t h e best
e s tim a te o f w in do rw in d -d r iv e n ra in d a m a g e , b u t t h e co u r t d idn o t t o ta lly di sregard t h e ot h er r el evan tevi den ce. Th e courtun dertook “ an att em pted
corr el ati on ” betw een t h e B ai rd est i m ate of w i n d d am age an d the i t em i zed l i stof t ot al da m ages an d c on cl u ded t h at t h e i n dep en den tw i n d an d w i n d-driven w ater da m age to t h e hom e pri or t o t h e f l ood dam age w as $16 3, 500
. T h e courtded u ct ed t h e $ 4 ,4 0 0 d e d u c t ib le to r e a c h th e fi n a l a w a r do f $ 1 5 9 ,1 0 0
. A lt h o u g h th e c o u r t ’s
c al c ul at i on w a s n ott o am at hem at i c alc er t ai nt y, w e do notf i nd t hatt he t r i al
c our t ’ s c al c ul at i on o f w i nd dam age i s c l ear l y er r oneo us. Th e evi denc e o f ac t ual exp en ses i n curred an d M r. R ei gst ad ’ s t est i m on y t h at 95% of t h e dam ages w ere c a u s e db yw in do rw in d -d r iv e n r a in s u ff ic ie n t lys u p p o r t s th e tr ia l c o u r t ’s d e te r m in a tio n o f d a m a g e s in e x c e s s o f th e w in d d a m a g e e s tim a te
. SeeG r e e n v. S eari ver Mari t i m e, I n c. , 2 48 F. App’ x 51 7, 5 19 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 007) (unpub l i s he d) ( “ T ri alt e s t i m o ny f

r o m b o t h t he pl ai nt i f f a nd h i s Capt ai n s ubs t ant i at e d t he
c o ur t ’ s f

i ndi ng t hatt he l i ne us e d i n t hatpa r t i c ul arm o o r i ng w as he av i e ra nd la r g e r th a n p r e v io u s m o o r in glin e s .”); S n ow - S orapu ru v. G reyhou n dL i n es, I n c. , 54 F

. A pp ’ x 405 , 405 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) (u n pu bl i shed ) ( “ T h e onl y evi den ce presented
o n t he i s s ue o f

c aus at i o n was t he t e s t i m on y o f t he pl ai nt i f

f

. . . . Bec aus e t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s fin d in g s w e r e n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s , w e a ffir m .”). I I I . C oncl usi on F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , w e A F F IR M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t.