IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30031 

Summary Calendar

CHUCK STYRON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:10-CV-1729

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Chuck Styron sued State Farm Fire and Casualty

Company (“State Farm”) for its failure to pay his homeowner’s claim for damages

to his home’s roof and interior, incurred during Hurricane Ike. The district court

granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. Styron appeals the

judgment. We AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 12-30031 

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Styron owns a residence located at 321 Peake Street in Lake Charles,

Louisiana. This property was insured by State Farm. On September 13, 2008,

Hurricane Ike made landfall near Galveston, Texas, which is located

approximately 120 miles to the southeast of Lake Charles. Hurricane Ike caused

significant winds and flooding in Texas and Louisiana. On March 16, 2009, after

several days of rain, Styron reported to his State Farm agent that a roof leak

caused damage to the interior of his home. The following day, a State Farm

claims representative, William Cain, contacted Styron, who reported that his

roof was missing several shingles and that the ceilings of several rooms in his

home had begun to leak. On March 19, 2009, Cain inspected the home and found

that several shingles were missing and would require repair. During this

inspection, Styron told Cain that after four days of rain during the week of

March 9-14, water leaked in and damaged the ceilings in his TV room, dining

room, guest bedroom, and kitchen. Cain found that several slate tiles on the roof

had come off their wiring. After inspecting Styron’s home, Cain determined that

the house had not suffered hurricane damage and moved the claim to “zone” for

handling as a non-hurricane claim. 

The case was reassigned to another claims representative, Stephen

Laughlin, who conducted a second inspection on March 20, 2009. Laughlin

identified four loose asbestos shingles on the roof and four damaged ridge caps. 

Laughlin determined that most of the interior damage was the result of longterm damage and caused by age, settlement, or poor workmanship. Laughlin

also found fresh water spots that were not located near the long-term damage.

Laughlin determined that the loose shingles and ridge caps could be attributed

to the wind, and prepared an estimate for the repair of the four shingles, four

ridge caps, and for the repair of the fresh water spots. State Farm issued

2

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 12-30031 

payment of $499.80, which covered the cost of the repairs, less depreciation and

the policy deductible.

Styron hired Rhino Rhenovators to provide an estimate to repair the

damage to his home. Rhino Rhenovators sent its estimate— $9,385.00 to repair

Styron’s damaged roof, ceiling, and floors—to State Farm. State Farm then

conducted another inspection on June 12, 2009, accompanied by Rhino

Rhenovators. Rhino suggested that wind had lifted the house’s flat roofing,

which allowed water to enter the house. However, the State Farm agent pointed

out that the flat roofing was still nailed down and that the nails could not have

lifted and then driven themselves back in. According to the State Farm agent,

the Rhino Rhenovators contractor “understood.” State Farm again determined

that it did not owe Styron any additional payment.

State Farm then engaged Poole Engineering to provide a professional

determination as to the cause of the damage. Poole conducted its inspection on

June 24, 2009 and issued its report on August 25, 2009. The report identified

points of damage in the house and on the roof, and ultimately concluded that the

water stains occurred over a long period of time on a repeated basis, and were

caused by insufficient insulation of ducts and air conditioning grills, and by

insufficient insulation of the spaces between the ceiling and the second floor and

between the ceiling and the attic. Poole also concluded that the floor buckling

was caused by exposure to excessive moisture that came from under the

residence, and that the moisture barrier breached because of normal long-term

movement of the finished floor relative to the subfloor; normal aging of the

roofing paper used for the moisture barrier; and excessive downward settlement

of the sub-structure, which caused the roofing paper moisture barrier to stretch,

tear, or separate. After receiving the report, State Farm again determined that

Styron was not due any additional payments.

3

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 12-30031 

In July 2010, Cal Chambers, a consultant hired by Styron, inspected

Styron’s house. He submitted a damage assessment report, estimating the

damages at $204,717.78. Chambers’ report did not identify any cause of the

estimated damages. State Farm also engaged Ribbeck Construction Corporation

to conduct an independent evaluation to determine the cause of the damage to

Styron’s home. After an initial visit, Ribbeck conducted three separate

inspections of the house. He concluded that there was “no evidence of roof

damage that would be caused by severe weather . . . . The roofs, both asbestos

shingle and built up roofs and all associated flashings are past their life cycle

and are in need of replacement.” 

Styron filed suit against State Farm on September 14, 2009, claiming that

his roof needed to be replaced as a result of Hurricane Ike, and that water

invading the home through roof leaks caused interior damage that required

repair. He also claimed that pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1220 and La. Rev.

Stat. § 22:658, State Farm breached its good faith duty in failing to timely and

adequately adjust Styron’s claim. Styron later filed a supplemental and amended

complaint, asserting the same claims and in addition claiming that State Farm’s

inspections further damaged his roof. State Farm filed a motion for summary

judgment, which the district court granted. Styron now appeals. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying

the same standard as the district court. Addicks Servs., Inc. v. GGP-Bridgeland,

LP, 596 F.3d 286, 293 (5th Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate if the

record shows that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under

the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In

reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we examine the evidence in the light

4

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 12-30031 

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Addicks Servs., Inc., 596 F.3d at 293.

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that summary judgment

is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the 

nonmoving party would bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may

meet its burden by showing “that there is an absence of evidence to support the

nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. Once the moving party has

made this showing, the burden shifts back to the nonmoving party “to go beyond

the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324; see also Galindo v. Precision Am.

Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985). While “any reasonable inferences are

to be drawn in favor of [the nonmoving] party,” Gowesky v. Singing River Hosp.

Sys., 321 F.3d 503, 507 (5th Cir. 2003), conclusory allegations and

unsubstantiated allegations alone are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). 

B. Insurance Claim

We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate. Styron’s

homeowner policy provides coverage for “accidental direct physical loss to the

property described in Coverage A, except as provided in SECTION I–LOSSES

NOT INSURED.” This policy provided coverage for wind damage, but did not

provide coverage for poor workmanship; wear, tear, deterioration, or latent

defect; settling, cracking, or expansion of walls, roofs, or ceilings; or leakage of

water from air conditioning systems, household appliances, or plumbing. “Under

Louisiana law, the insured must prove that the claim asserted is covered by his

policy. Once he has done this, the insurer has the burden of demonstrating that

the damage at issue is excluded from coverage.” Dickerson v. Lexington Ins. Co.,

556 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir. 2009). To warrant summary judgment, State Farm

must demonstrate that Styron would not be able to meet this initial burden of

5

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 12-30031 

proof at trial. Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to Styron, we

conclude that there was no evidence that the damage to Styron’s roof and

interior was caused by wind and thus covered by his policy. 

Styron presented Rhino Rhenovators’ repair estimate and Cal Chambers’

loss estimate. Neither estimate provides an explanation as to the cause of the

damage. When a Rhino Rhenovators’ contractor inspected the home with a State

Farm agent, the contractor theorized that wind lifted the flat roofing of the

house and allowed rain in, he was told that nails were still attached to the

decking of the roof and that the roof could not have been lifted by wind and then

nailed itself back in. In his deposition, Cal Chambers testified that the source of

the water damage inside the house appeared to be from the roof, but that he

could not identify the cause of the damage to the roof. Styron testified that the

problems with his roof got worse after Hurricane Ike. He presented no other

evidence as to the cause of the damage to his roof and interior.

There is significant evidence that the only damage that might have been

caused by wind was the four loose asbestos shingles, four damaged ridge caps,

and a fresh interior water spot, for which State Farm has already rendered

payment. Two State Farm claims representatives, Cain and Laughlin, inspected

the home on separate occasions, and neither found Hurricane-related damage,

other than the four loose shingles, four ridge caps, and the fresh interior water

spot. Laughlin then inspected the property again, with a Rhino Rhenovators

contractor, and determined that the repairs estimated by Rhino Rhenovators

were for damage caused by wear and tear, lack of maintenance, or workmanship

issues. State Farm also engaged Poole Engineering for the purpose of

determining the cause of the damage to the home. Poole concluded that there

was no wind-caused damage to the residence, and attributed the damage to

issues relating to age-related deterioration, condensation from the sprinkler and

air conditioning systems, and workmanship issues. State Farm then engaged

6

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 12-30031 

Edward Ribbeck to conduct an independent inspection of the property. Ribbeck

concluded that the damage was not caused by severe weather, and instead

determined that the roof was past its life cycle and needed replacement. He also

found that many of the water stains inside the house were not related to the roof

damage. Ribbeck and Poole are the only expert opinions in the record regarding

causation; Chambers did not testify as an expert and he did not testify as to

causation.

The only evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the damage

to the house—other than the damage for which State Farm has already issued

payment—was not caused by wind and was not covered by Styron’s insurance

policy. Therefore, State Farm was entitled to summary judgment on Styron’s

insurance claims.

C. Claim for Damages Caused by Home Inspection

State Farm also was entitled to summary judgment on Styron’s claim that

the damage to his residence was aggravated when a State Farm inspector

walked on his roof during an investigation. Styron testified that he noticed more

leaking after State Farm conducted its roof inspection and “assume[d]” that

further damage was caused by the inspector walking across the roof. There is

no other evidence in the record to support this claim. “[T]estimony based on

conjecture alone is insufficient to raise an issue to defeat summary judgment.”

Lechuga v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 949 F.2d 790, 798 (5th Cir. 1992). Viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to Styron, we conclude that there is no

genuine issue as to whether the damage to the roof was exacerbated by the

inspection.

D. Breach of Good Faith Claim

Because Styron was not entitled to additional insurance payments for the

damage to his home’s roof and interior, he cannot establish that he is entitled to

7

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/22/2012
No. 12-30031 

damages under La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1973. The statute provides that any insurer 1

who breaches his “duty of good faith and fair dealing” or fails to “adjust claims

fairly and promptly [or] to make a reasonable effort to settle claims . . . . shall be

liable for any damages sustained as a result of the breach.” La. Rev. Stat.

§ 22:1973. Styron claims that State Farm breached its good faith duty to timely

and adequately adjust his claim. State Farm conducted its first inspection of the

house three days after Styron filed his insurance claim, and a second inspection

the following day. State Farm provided Styron with payment for the covered

damages, along with a partial denial and covered damages letter, less than one

month after Styron first filed his claim. There is no evidence that State Farm

breached its duty of good faith with regard to the covered damages. Because we

conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial as to whether

State Farm owes additional payment for the remaining damages, we further

conclude that State Farm cannot be held liable for penalties and attorney fees

under this statute. 

III. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Styron’s Petition for Damages claims that he is entitled to damages under La. Rev. 1

Stat. § 22:1220, which is the former citation of La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1973.

8

Case: 12-30031 Document: 00511896894 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/22/2012