1 17-3501-cv Carlson v. Allstate Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


## SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Cita tion to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted a nd is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a party mu st cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summa ry order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse , 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 2 nd day of April, two thousand nineteen.

PRESENT: P IERRE N. L EVAL , J OSÉ A. C ABRANES , B ARRINGTON D. P ARKER , Circuit Judges.

N ANCY E. C ARLSON , Plaintiff-Appellant, 17-3501-cv

G LENN R. C ARLSON , Plaintiff,

v.

A LLSTATE I NSURANCE C OMPANY , Defendant-Appellee

.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: J EFFREY R. L INDEQUIST , Law Office of Michael D. Parker, Springfield, MA.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: R AYMOND T. D E M EO (Jessica A.R. Hamilton, on the brief ), Robinson & Cole LLP, Hartford, CT.2 Appeal from a September 28, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Michael P. Shea, Judge ).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREO F, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED

. Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy E. Carlson (“Carls on”) appeals the District Court’s judgment of September 28, 2017 granting the motion for su mmary judgment of Defendant-Appellee Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). Carlson sued Allstate for: (1) breach of contract based on Allstate’s denial of coverage under their homeowner’s insur ance policy (the “Allstate Policy”); (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Pra ctices Act, as enforced through the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. We assume the part ies’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo .” Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co. , 906 F.3d 12, 17 (2d Cir. 2018) (citati on omitted). “Because interpretation of an insurance agreement is a question of law, we review the district court’s construction of [an insurance policy] de novo.” US. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Fendi Adele S.R.L. , 823 F.3d 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
We heard oral argument in the instant case in tandem with two other actions against Allstate. See Valls v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 17-3495-cv; Lees v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 18-007-cv. For the reasons set forth in the Valls per curiam opinion, which has been filed simultaneously with the instant order, we affirm the summary judgment entered by the District Court because we conclude that the gradual deterioration of basement walls does not constitute a covered “collapse” under the Allstate Policy.

CONCLUSION
We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Carlson on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the September 28, 2017 judgment of the District Court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk