Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.

R. 47.5.4.

 This court granted leave to appeal from the district court’s order denying Balboa’s 1

motion for summary judgment, entered on October 14, 2008, and the district court’s order

denying Balboa’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), entered on November 25, 2008.

Because Balboa did not seek judicial review of its Rule 59(e) motion before this court, we will

not consider that issue. “An appellant abandons all issues not raised and argued in its initial

brief on appeal.” Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60036

DENNIS DOUZART; FAITH SEAWRIGHT,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:07-CV-1057

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Balboa Insurance Company (Balboa) appeals the district court’s denial of

its motion for summary judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). In its motion, 1

Balboa asserted that the damage to Dennis Douzart and Faith Seawright’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 26, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-60036 Document: 00511036988 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2010
No. 09-60036

2

(Douzarts) home caused by Hurricane Katrina was not covered under the Balboa

policy because the damage to their home resulted from an excluded peril under

the policy–windstorm damage–rather than an explosion, which is not excluded.

In response to Balboa’s motion for summary judgment, the Douzarts supported

their assertion that damage to their home was caused by an explosion resulting

from the accumulation of air inside their home during the hurricane with an

affidavit from Dr. Neil B. Hall. Dr. Hall concluded that “to trigger progressive

failure and the complete destruction of the building due to hurricane wind, it is

most likely that some portion of the building did ‘explode’ in a matter of seconds,

followed by the progressive failure of the structure.”

The district court found that “there is a genuine issue of material fact

regarding whether the [Douzarts] are entitled to coverage under the

homeowner’s insurance policy issued to them by Balboa” and “that a genuine

issue of material fact exists regarding whether Balboa had an arguable or

legitimate basis for denying the [Douzarts’] claim.” More particularly, the

district court concluded that Dr. Hall’s testimony “creates a genuine issue of

material fact regarding whether all or part of the damage to the [Douzarts’]

home was caused by an explosion that resulted from a windstorm.” In reaching

its conclusion, the district court noted that Balboa has not submitted any

evidence that it actually inspected the Douzarts’ home even after the Douzarts

informed Balboa that its adjuster had inspected the wrong house. Furthermore,

Balboa has failed to produce its own expert report or any other evidence contrary

to Dr. Hall’s conclusions.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the

reasons stated in the district court’s careful and thorough order, dated October

14, 2008, denying Balboa’s motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-60036 Document: 00511036988 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2010