* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 1 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

TERRY RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE OF DURANT, OKLAHOMA, a corporation; METT BROTHERS, INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-7033 (D.C. No. 97-CV-186-B) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , EBEL , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

In this diversity action, Terry Richardson appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his complaint allegin g that defendants’ negligent electrical equipment and service caused afire which destroyed his1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. -2- home. 1 Subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversityof citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A federal court sitting in di versity applies the substantive law of the forum state. See Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co. v. Salazar , 77 F.3d 1291, 1294 (10th Cir. 1996) (applying Oklahoma law) . Therefore, we apply the substantive law of Oklahoma. “We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court purs uant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).” Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996) (further quot ation omitted). We examine the factual record and the inferences re asonably drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. See Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc. , 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). “Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together w ith the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material f act and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Kaul , 83 F.3d at 1212 (further quotation omitted). Once the party that asked for summary ju dgment shows the absence of-3-

a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmovant “ca nnot rest upon his or her pleadings, but must bring forward specific facts sh owing a genuine issue for trial as to those dispositive matters for which [he or sh e] carries the burden of proof. Craig v. Eberly , 164 F.3d 490, 493 (10th Cir. 1998) (quotations om itted). Mr. Richardson’s home, including its furnishings, w as completely destroyed by fire on August 31, 1995. His complaint alleged that the fire was caused by defendants’ negligence in installing a power line and connecting electrical service to his home in the days immediately preceding the f ire. Mr. Richardson presented evidence that defendants’ installation of electrica l service was not performed by a licensed electrical contractor and that several asp ects of the installation did not comply with the National Electrical Code. Defendants presented evidence from an expert in ele ctrical power and control systems and fire investigation that defendants’ electrical equipment and service were not the cause or origin of the fire. Defendants’ expert provided a detailed affidavit describing his site inspection and analysis of Mr. Richardson’s property after the fire. See Appellant’s App. at 64-66. In the affidavit, defendants’ expert verified that there was no indic ation that defendants’ electrical service equipment malfunctioned or started the fire and that the physical evidence suggested that the electrical service and equipmentat Mr. Richardson’s home were de-energized at the time of the fire, in which case the service and equipment-4-

could not have been the cause or origin of the fire. See id . at 65-66. T he expert also testified that, had the electrical service and equipment been involved in the initiation of the fire, there would be evidence of sustained electrical arcing damage, which was not found on the electrical equip ment at Mr. Richardson’s home. Id

. In response to this evidence, Mr. Richardson failedto present any evidence indicating what initiated or caused the fire, or to present any evidence refuting defendants’ evidence that the fire was not caused b y their electrical service or equipment. “‘Failure to establish that the defenda nt’s negligence was the proximate cause of the harmful event is fatal to [a ] plaintiff’s [negligence] claim.’” Lefthand v. City of Okmulgee , 968 P.2d 1224, 1225-26 (Okla. 1998) (quoting Thompson v. Presbyterian Hospital, Inc. , 652 P.2d 260, 263 (Okla. 1982)). “As a general rule the question of proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury. Id . at 1226. “[T]he question of proximate cause beco mes a question of law when the facts are undisputed and there is n o evidence from which a jury could reasonably find a causal connection between the allegedly negligent act and the injury.” Id

. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Richardson failed to present any evidence indicating a causal link betwe en defendants’ electrical equipment or service and the fire. Where the nonmo vant will bear the burden of-5-

proof at trial on a dispositive issue, that party m ust go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts so as to make a showing su fficient to establish the existence, as a triable issue, of an element essent ial to that party’s case in order to survive summary judgment. See McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp. , 149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998). Mr. Richardson’s gene ral and conclusory conjecture regarding causation is insufficient to show there i s a genuine issue of material fact or that the defendants are not entitled to sum mary judgment as a matter of law. See Elsken v. Network Multi-Family Sec. Corp. , 49 F.3d 1470, 1476 (10th Cir. 1995) (“Conclusory allegations that are unsubstantiated do not create an issue of fact and are insufficient to oppose sum mary judgment.”). Because Mr. Richardson failed to present any evidence that defendants’ negligence caused the fire, an essential element of his claim, the di strict court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge