Opinion ID: 213920
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timely payment of claim

Text: In the Plaintiffs' homeowners policy, the coverage for contents differs from the coverages for dwelling and other structures in one material respect: the provision for contents lists the covered losses. Coverage C is thus a named-peril provision: it names the perils coveredfor instance, windstorm is a covered loss in the Plaintiffs' policy. Flood, on the other hand, is explicitly excluded from coverage. Coverages A and B do not similarly name the covered perils; they instead contain a blanket statement that losses are covered unless the policy excludes them. This distinction is relevant for purposes of assigning the burdens of proof: in Louisiana, the insured carries the burden of persuasion to establish that any uncompensated (or under-compensated) damage was caused by a covered peril. Bayle, 615 F.3d at 358; see also Opera Boats, Inc. v. La Reunion Francaise, 893 F.2d 103, 105 (5th Cir.1990) (When insurance is provided by a named-perils clause, the initial burden is on the insured to prove that loss occurred by the named peril.); Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So.2d 119, 123-24 (La.2000) (When determining whether or not a policy affords coverage for an incident, it is the burden of the insured to prove the incident falls within the policy's terms. On the other hand, the insurer bears the burden of proving the applicability of an exclusionary clause within a policy. (internal citations omitted)). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs had the burden to demonstrate that the reimbursement they sought was for contents damaged by wind, and not by an excluded peril such as flood. The record shows that although the Plaintiffs claimed general damage to contents in their initial loss report to Allstate, they did not submit an inventory of their damaged contentsa prerequisite to recoveryuntil February 2008, after litigation had commenced. The Plaintiffs requested $88,926.37 on their contents claim. Because the Plaintiffs did not make clear the cause of damage of each inventoried item, Allstate requested additional information from the Plaintiffs on their claim. The Plaintiffs retained an expert, Marie de la Vergne, to assist with their contents claim, and with her help the Plaintiffs submitted a more detailed contents report in April 2008. Allstate deposed Vergne in May 2008 to seek additional information on the Plaintiffs' loss. Allstate also requested to depose the Plaintiffs regarding their contents claim, and they were deposed on October 20, 2008. On November 13, 2008, Allstate paid the Plaintiffs' contents claim in full. The district court concluded that Allstate did not receive satisfactory proof of loss on the Plaintiffs' contents claim until at least October 2008, when the Plaintiffs were deposed. On this record, we conclude that this determination is not clearly erroneous. The Plaintiffs at all times bore the burden of establishing the contents damaged and their value, and that wind was the common cause of damage. In addition, the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving when Allstate received satisfactory proof of loss. See Sher, 988 So.2d at 206 (One who claims entitlement to penalties and attorney fees has the burden of proving the insurer received satisfactory proof of loss as a predicate to a showing that the insurer was arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.). The Plaintiffs have not sufficiently demonstrated that Allstate received satisfactory proof of loss prior to October 2008. Nor have they adduced any evidence in support of their assertion that Allstate handled their contents claim in an arbitrary or capricious manner.