IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30098

ALLEN GLYN SONNIER, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly

Situated; NOLAN PAUL MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of Others

Similarly Situated

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 06-1439

Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Allen Glyn Sonnier and Nolan Paul Martin (“Appellants”) appeal the

district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,

which dismissal finally disposed of Appellants’ individual and purported class

action claims. Appellants possessed automobile insurance policies from State

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). Appellants allege

that State Farm breached its contractual obligation under the policies when it

refused to pay for inspection and testing of Appellants’ seatbelts and seatbelt

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30098

1 This extensive seatbelts inspection includes examination and testing of the seatbelts,

examination and testing of the hardware, road testing of the entire system, and checking the

system’s warning lights. 

2

locking mechanisms after Appellants were involved in automobile accidents. For

the following reasons, we AFFIRM. 

I. BACKGROUND

Martin and Sonnier were involved in automobile accidents in 2001 and

2004, respectively. They took their automobiles to body shops, where an

estimate for necessary repairs was provided. It is undisputed that State Farm

paid for repairs as set forth in the estimates and in subsequent supplemental

estimates. According to Appellants’ vehicle manufacturer and an independent

trade group–the Inter-Industry Conference on Collision Repairs–an automobile’s

seatbelts and seatbelt locking mechanisms (collectively, “seatbelts”) should be

thoroughly inspected after any collision.1If a body shop deems such an

inspection unnecessary and does notlistit on the estimate,then State Farm will

not cover the cost of the seatbelt inspection. Although Appellants do not allege

that their seatbelts were harmed in any way during or after the collisions, they

claim that State Farm was contractually obligated to provide an extensive

seatbelts inspection. 

The district court orally granted State Farm’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss, finding that “based on the contractual agreement to repair, if there is

no complaint of a failure,there is nothing to repair.” Appellants appeal, arguing

that the term “cost of repair” necessarily includes the cost of the seatbelts

inspection because in order to repair something, one must first inspect to

determine what is in need of repair. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo the district court’s order on a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th
No. 07-30098

3

Cir. 2007). The court “accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the

light mostfavorable to the plaintiff.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that

is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, — U.S. —, 127 S. Ct. 1955,

1974 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level, on the assumption that allthe allegations in the complaint

are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965.

III. DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that Louisiana law applies to this case. According to

Louisiana law, “[w]ords and phrases used in a policy are to be construed using

their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning, unless the words have

acquired a technical meaning. An insurance policy should not be interpreted in

an unreasonable or strained manner so as to enlarge or to restrict its provisions

beyond what is reasonably contemplated by its terms or so as to achieve an

absurd conclusion.” Reynolds v. Select Props., Ltd., 634 So. 2d 1180, 1183 (La.

1994) (citations omitted). “[I]f the language of the exclusion is subject to two or

more reasonable interpretations,the interpretation which favors coverage must

be applied. It is equally well settled, however, that subject to the above rules of

interpretation, insurance companies have the right to limit coverage in any

manner they desire, so long as the limitations do not conflict with statutory

provisions or public policy.” Id. (citations omitted). A court interpreting an

insurance policy cannot “make a new contract for the parties or disregard the

evidence as expressed, or . . . refine away terms of a contract expressed with

sufficient clearness to convey the plain meaning of the parties.” Id.

The automobile insurance policies at issue obligate State Farm to pay for

“direct and accidental loss of or damage to” the automobile or its equipment.

State Farm’s limit of liability “for loss to property or any part of it is the lower

of” the automobile’s actual cash value or the cost of repair or replacement. The
No. 07-30098

4

cost of repair or replacement is based upon: (1) a price agreed upon by the

insured and insurer; (2) a competitive bid approved by State Farm; or (3) “an

estimate written based upon the prevailing competitive price.” The third option

is involved in this case. 

The Supreme Court of Louisiana has previously interpreted the term

“repairs,” finding that it “must be given its generally prevailing meaning and be

construed according to its common usage.” S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. Barthelemy,

643 So. 2d 1240, 1250 (La. 1994). “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines

repair as, to restore by replacing a part or putting together what is torn or

broken. The jurisprudence has similarly defined it as, to fix anything that is

broken.” Id.(citing Intercoastal Pipe Serv. Co. v. Assumption Parish Sales & Use

Tax Dep’t, 558 So. 2d 1296, 1300 (La. 1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This Court, applying Louisiana law, held that an automobile insurance

“policy provision requiring the insurer to pay the cost of repair or replacement

limits the insurer’s liability to the cost of restoring the vehicle to substantially

the same physical condition as before the accident so that itis as fitfor operation

as it was prior to the occurrence of the damage.” Manguno v. Prudential Prop.

& Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 725 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Townsend v. State Farm

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 793 So. 2d 473, 480 (La. Ct. App. 2001)). In fact, we

previously interpreted the State Farm policy language at issue here, finding it

“unambiguous.” Blakely v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 406 F.3d 747, 753

(5th Cir. 2005). We stated that “[t]he policy, read as a whole, defines repair or

replacement as restoring the vehicle to pre-accident mechanical function and

condition.” Id.

Applying these principles to the policy language at issue, we find that

Appellants fail to establish that State Farm breached its contractual duties.

State Farm is obligated to pay for loss or damage to Appellants’ vehicles based

upon a written estimate. In creating estimates, body shops conduct an
No. 07-30098

2

If there actually were something wrong with the seatbelts, it would be arguable that

State Farm would have to pay for the tests necessary to determine just what that was and how

to fix it as part of the costs of repairing the seatbelt. However, Appellants have refused to

allege that there is in fact anything wrong with the seatbelt (or even that there seemed to be

something wrong). 

5

inspection, list the items in need of repair, and determine the amount State

Farm owes “based upon the prevailing competitive price.” Appellants’ argument

that an estimate must necessarily include an extensive seatbelts inspection finds

no support in the policy language. There is no policy language describing State

Farm’s duty to conduct or pay for automobile inspections. State Farm’s duty is

to pay for loss or damage to Appellants’ vehicles, measured by the cost of repair.

That obligation was fulfilled in this case, and Appellants do not further identify

anything broken that needs to be fixed. 

Absent a contractual provision or legislative act calling for an extensive

seatbelts inspection upon the occurrence of any automobile collision, we will not

enlarge the meaning of “cost of repair” beyond its everyday understanding. The

fact that Appellants’ automobile manufacturers and the Inter-Industry

Conference on Collision Repairs recommend such an inspection does not change

our analysis. We are solely guided by the policy language before us, which

requires State Farm to pay Appellants for loss to property based upon the cost

of repair. There is no indication that State Farm failed to honor this contractual

obligation. Thus, Appellants’ breach of contract claim is without merit.2

Since we find that State Farm did not breach its contractual obligations,

we necessarily find that State Farm is not liable for bad faith breach of contract.

Accordingly, Appellants are not entitled to any penalties or attorney’s fees under

LA. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 22:658 or 22:1220. Therefore, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.