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- 61099 Su m m ar y Cal endar
GE I CO I NS URA NCE C OMPA NY P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l e e v. N AN CY W H I TE D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S 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

N o. 1: 07- C V

- 1004

B ef ore K IN G , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * D efen da n t
- ap pel l an tN an cyW h i t e app eal s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of
s um m ar y j u d g m e n ti nf a v o ro f p l a i n t if f

- a p p e ll e e GEI CO I n s u r anc e Com pa ny and i t s de c l ar at o r y j udg m e ntt hathe rr e c o ve r y i s l i m i t e d t o $2 5, 00 0. For t he r e as o ns s ta te d b e lo w , w e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkThe distric t court didnotr e a c hthe meritsof White ’sinterpr etation of the policy. 1 Whit ec o nc e d e dth atc over a gew o ul db eli m it e dto$ 2 5 , 0 0 0if th eAm e n d m e ntw a seffe ctive. Therefore, the district court conclude d th at it did not need t o reachthe merits of White’s 2 I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O n A p ri l1 2 , 2006, W hi t e w as i nj ure d w hen herve hi c l e w as s t r uck bya v e h ic le d r iv e n b yA d a m H a ll, am in o r . W h ite b r o u g h t s u it a g a in s t H a ll a n d h is father (col l ect ivel y, t h e “ H al l s” ) i n M i ssi ssi pp ist ate c ou rt
. Th e parti es enter ed i n to a co n sen t j u d gm en t i n the am ou n t of $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 , bu t t h eyl i m i ted reco ve ryto t h e a m o u n t t h a tc o u l d b e c o l l e c t e df r o m t h e Ha l l s ’i n s u r a n c e p o l i c ywi t h GEI CO In su ra n ce C om p a n y (“G E IC O ”)
. C ov era g e u n d er th e p oli cyw a s l i m i ted to $2 5, 00 0, a nd t he H al l s i ns ur e d f o ur di f fe r e nt aut o m o bi l e s und e rt he po l i c y. The H al l s’ori gi n alpol i cy st ates t h at c overed l osses i n cl u de: 1. bo di l y i nj ur y, s us t ai ne d b y a pe r s o n, a nd; 2. da m age t o o rde s t r uc t i o n o f pr o pe r t y, a r i s i ng o uto f t he o w ne r s hi p, m ai nt e nanc e , o rus e o f t he ow n ed aut o o ra no now n ed au t o. G E IC O a lle g e d th a t t h is la n g u a g e h a db e e n s u p e r s e d e d b y a n A u to m o b ile P o lic yA m e n d m e n t (t h e “A m e n d m e n t ”) t h a t b e c a m e e ffe c tiv e a fte rth e H a lls pur c has ed t he i rpo l i c y butpr i o rt o t he da t e o f t he a c c i de nt
. The Am e ndm e nt st ates t h at c overed l osses i n cl u de: 1. bod i l y i nj u ry, sust ai n ed bya person, or 2. dam age t o o rdes t r uct i on o f pr ope r t y, a ri singou t of th e ow n ersh i p , m a i n ten a n ce, or u se o f th e ow n ed au to o ra n o n -o w n e d a u to
. G EI CO f

i l e d s ui ti n f

e de r aldi s t r i c tc o ur ts e e ki ng a de c l ar at o r y j udg m e nt t hati t s l i abi l i t y w as l i m i t ed t o $ 25, 000. W hi t e ar gued t hat und ert he l anguage of t h e ori gi n alpol i cy, w h i ch does n otconn ectt h e “ ow n ershi p, m ai n t en an ce, or use ” r equi r em entt o b odi l y i nj ury, t he t ot alc ove r age w oul d have bee n $100, 000 ( i
. e. , $ 25, 00 0 f

o re ac h o f

t he f o ura ut o m o bi l e s i ns ur e d r at he rt han j us tt he o ne a u to m o b il e u se d in th e a cc id e n t). 1interpretation . Likewise, we make no co mment on the validity of Whi t e’ scl aim that the

lan gu age u sed in the original policyincrea sed coverage to$1 00,0 00 in this instance. 3 W h i t e a rgued tha tthere w as a g en u i n e is sue of m ater i alfacta s to w h et h er th e A m e n d m e n t h a d b e e n m a ile d to th e H a lls a n dh a db e c o m e p a r t o f th e ir po l i c y pr i o rt o t he a c c i de nt
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ude d t hatt he Am e ndm e nt h a d be en m a i l ed to t h e H a l l s ba sed o n the f oll ow i n g: (1) th e H a l l s cl a i m ed to h a v e lo s t t h e irco p yo f th e p o lic yd u r in gH u r r ic a n e K a tr in a ; (2 ) G E IC O ’ s R u le 30(b) ( 6) r epr es ent at ive t es t i f i ed t hat r evi si ons ar e se nt ou t “ aut om at i c al l y, p r o g r a m m a t i c a l l y” wi t h t he n e x tp o l i c yr e n e wa l ; a n d( 3 ) t h e a f f i d a v i to f

K. A. Jo ne s , a n e m pl o ye e i n G E IC O ’ s und e r w r i t i ng de pa r t m e nt , s t at e d t hatt he A m en dm en tw en ti n t o ef fectF ebru ary 11, 200 2, an d that “ t h e renew alpol i cy contai n i n g t h e A m en dm en tw as p roces sed t o b e m ai l ed to t h e H al l s on F ebru ary 1 4 , 20 0 2
. ” I I . DI S CU S S I ON

“W e revi ew a di st rictcourtj u dg m en trendered on cross - m ot i on s f or su m m a ry j u d gm en t de n ov o.” Fi rstColony L if e I n s. Co. v. S anf

ord , 555 F. 3d 177, 18 0 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. “ Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e w he n ‘ t he pl e ad i ngs , t he d is c o v e r ya n d d is c lo s u r e m a te r ia ls o n f ile , a n da n ya ffid a v its s h o w th a t t h e r e is
n o g enui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i al fac t and t hat t he m ovant i s ent i t l ed t o ju d g m e n t a s a m a tter of l a w . ’” Id
. ( quot i ng F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c )); s e ealso A n d ers on v. L i berty L obby, I n c. , 4 7 7 U
. S
. 2 4 2 , 2 5 1 (19 8 6 ). W e con stru e a l lfa cts anddr aw al l j us t i f

i ab l e i nfe r e nc e s i n t he l i ght m o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he no nm o vi ng par t y, but“ t he nonm ovi ng par t y m usts etf or t h spe c i f

i c fac t s t o es tab l i sh t hat th ere i s a ge n u i n e i ssu e f or tri a l
. ” Fi rstColony L if e I n s. , 5 5 5 F
. 3 da t1 8 0
. “An i s s ue i s ‘ ge n u i n e’if

t he e vi de nc e i s s uf

f i c i e ntf o ra r e as o nab l e j ur y t o r e t ur n a ve rd i ct f

or th e n on m ov in gp a rty.” Id
. at181 ( quot i ng Ham i l t o n v . Segue S of t w are I n c. , 2 3 2 F .3 d 4 7 3 , 4 7 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )).4

W hi t e ’ s pr i m ar y c o nt e nt i o n i s t hatG EI CO di d no te s t ab l i s h t hatt he A m e n d m e n t w a s s p e c ific a llym a ile dto th e H a l l s . R a th e r , G E IC O s o u g h t o n ly t o show how t h e A m en dm en tw ou l d h ave been m ai l ed i n t h e ordi n ary course of i t s busi nes s pra c t i c e. The di st r i c tc our taddr es se d t hi s ar gum entby not i ng t hat

“ [ p]l aci n g lett ers i n t h e m ai lm ay be p roved byci rcum st an t i alevi den ce, i n cl u d i n g cu sto m a rym a i l i n g p ra cti ces u sed i n the sen d er’ s bu sine ss. ” W ells F argo B u s. C redi tv. B en K ozlof f , I n c. , 6 95 F
. 2d 9 40, 9 44 ( 5th C i r. 1 982 )
. U n der th is ru le , W h ite ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t G E IC O w a s re q u ir e dto p r o v e t h e s p e c ific d e t a il s o f m a il in gth e A m e n d m e n td ir e c t lyto th e H a ll s la c k s m e r i t . G E I C O ’s evi den ce w as suf

f i ci en tt o expl ai n th e p roces s by w h i ch n ew am en dm en t s are m ai l e d t o i t s c ur r e nt po l i c y ho l de r s . The bur de n t he n s hi f t e d t o W hi t e t o pr e s e nt
s o m e e v id e n c e b e y o n d a b a r e a s s e r tio n o f n o n -r e c e ip t, w h ic h s h e fa ile dto d o . M or e o v e r , ther e has neve rbe en a di r ec t , unequivoc aldeni alof t he fac tt hat th e H a lls re c e iv e d t h e A m e n d m e n t. T h e H a lls d idn o t s u b m it a co p yo f th e ir po l i c y be c aus e t he y l o s ta l lo f t he i rf i l es and pa pe r w o r k d ur i ng H ur r i c ane K atr i n a. Th u s, W h i t e argu es onl y t h at G E IC O h as n ot carri ed i t s burd en un der t he m ai lbox r ul e t o s ho w t hatt he Am e ndm e ntw as pr o pe r l y m ai l e d. The
m ai lbox ru l e “ ‘ provi des t h at the proper an d t i m el y m ai l i n g of a docu m en trai ses a rebu t t able presum pti on t h at t h e docu m en tha s been received by the add ress ee i n the u su a lti m e.’” C u st er v. Mu rphy O i l US A , I n c. , 5 03 F
. 3d 4 15, 419 ( 5th C i r. 2007) ( quot i ng Sc hi ko r ev . BankAm e r i c a Supple m e nt alRet
. Plan , 269 F. 3d 956, 96 1 ( 9t h Ci r . 2 00 1) )
. W hi t e ha s pr o vi de d no t hi ng t o r e butt hatpr e s um pt i o n a nd h a s on l y w ea k l y d en i ed tha t t h e H a l l s r e ceive dthe A m en d m en t. In or d er to avoi d s um m ar y j udgm ent, a n a sse r t i on o f non- r ec ei ptm ustbe s upport ed by
c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Id
. at 422. H er e, G E I C O pro vi d ed c i r c um st ant i al sup port f

or i t s clai m t h at t h e A m en dm en tw as m ai l ed to t h e H al l s i n t h e f orm of Jon es’ s aff

i da vi t , b u tW h i t e p rovi ded no ci rcum st an t i alevi den ce i n sup port of h e r c la im th a t it w a s n o t r e c e iv e db yth e H a lls
. Se eD uro n v . Al b e r t s o n’ s LLC ,Itshould be note d that White did not provide anyle gal authorityto support either 2 of th es e prop os ition s. 5 560 F
. 3d 288 , 291 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) (vacati n g sum m ary j u dg m en t w h ere t h e send er had“ s ubm i t t e d noa f f i da vi t s i n s upp o r to f t he m ai l i ng” a nd, i n c o nt r as t , t he
r e c i pi e nt h ad “pr o vi de d as w o r n a f f i da vi tt hats he di d no tr e c e ive ” t he d o c u m e n t)
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r twa s c o r r e c tt o c o n c l u d e t h a tGEI CO h a d m a i l ed the A m en d m en t t o th e H a l l s p ri or to th e d a te of t h e a cciden t. I n a ddi t i o n t o cl ai m i ng t hatG EI CO di d no tc ar r y i t s b ur de n und e rt he
m ai lbox r ul e, W hi t e a r gu es that( 1) t hi s i ss ue w as dec i ded as a m at t erof l aw w h en sh e a d m i tted in h er a n sw er th a t t h e cop y o f th e origin a lpo l i cyattach ed to t he c o m pl ai nt , w hi c h di d no ti nc l ude t he Am e ndm e nt , w as t r ue a nd c o r r e c t ; a nd ( 2) t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n co n si deri n g Jon es’ s af f i da vi tbecau se i tw as f i rst
s ubm i t t e d wi t h GE I CO ’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt , w hi c h was a f t e rt he di scovery deadli n e. 2 R egard i n g t h e f

i rsti ssue, W h i t e’ s answ er noted t h at t h e copy of t h e pol i cy at t ac he d t o t he c o m pl ai ntw as i nc o m pl e t e b e c aus e i tl ac ke d t he de c l ar at i o ns page. I n ot herw or ds, W hi t e’ s answ er i nvi t ed G E I C O t o s uppl em entw hati thad
a tt a c h e d to its o r ig in a l co m p l a i n t
. R e g a r d in gth e s e c o n dis s u e , G E IC O to ld W hi t e’ s c ounse lduri ng t he R ul e 3 0(b) ( 6) de p osi t i on, w hen t he w i t nes s w as s t r ugg l i ng t o e xp l ai n t he proce dur e f o rm ai l i ng o uta m e ndm e nt s t o e xi s t i ng po l i c yho l de r s , t hathe w o ul d o bt ai n a n a f f i da vi tfr o m t he und e r w r i t i ng dep art m en tbett er exp l ai n i n g h ow an d w h en t h e A m en dm en tw ou l d h ave been
s e n tt o t h e Ha l l s . J o n e s ’ s a f f i d a v i t f u l f i l l s t h i s p r o m i s e . Fu r t h e r m o r e , GEI CO
r e s po nds t o W hi t e ’ s pr o t e s t at i o ns t hat s he w as una bl e t o de po s e J o ne s b y no t i ng t hatRul e 5 6(f

) o f t he Fe de r alR ul e s of Ci vi lPr o c e dur e a l l o w s a pa r t y o ppo s i ng a m o t i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en tt o request t h at t h e courtorder a c on t i n u an ce

“ t o ena bl e af

f i da vi t s t o be obtai n ed, dep osi t i on s t o be t ak en , or ot h er di scovery to b e u n d e r ta k e n .” W h i t e n e v e rs o u g h t t o d e p o s e J o n e s a fte rre c e iv in gh is6

af f i da vi t
. W h i t e’ s c ou n sel ’ s r espon se w as t h at “ [f ] ran kly, un d e rs ign ed coun sel
w a s n o ta w a r e o f t h is p r o v is io n o f R u le 5 6 (f ) u n t ilitw a s m e n t io n e din G E I C O ’s A p p e lle e ’ s B r ie f.” T h is co n fe s s io n o f ig n o r a n c e a s to th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C iv il P rocedure does n otabsol ve W h i t e f rom fai l i n g t o seek f u rth e r d i scovery af

t er receivi n g Jon es’ s af

f i da vi t
. W e are t h u s not p ersuad ed that t h e di st ri ctcourt
erre d i n co n sider i n g J on es’ s a ff i d a vit a n di n con cl u d i n g th a t G E IC O carr i ed i ts b u r d e n u n d e rth e m a ilb o xru le
. I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or th e rea son s stated ab ov e, w e A F F IR M the distri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t.