Opinion ID: 61821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Flood I Loss

Text: We affirm the district court’s factual finding that there was no covered damage following Flood I, because we do not think this conclusion is clearly erroneous. See U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. at 395. The SFIP only covers “direct physical loss” to the insured dwelling. SFIP, 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A(1), Art. I. The evidence in the record, particularly the photographs of the Gallups’ home, 4 No. 06-31156 support the conclusion that the only damage after Flood I was exposure of the concrete footings supporting two of the pilings upon which Building B stood. Although there was conflicting evidence at trial as to the structural integrity of Building B after Flood I, weighing the credibility of conflicting witness testimony is the responsibility of the district court. United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez, 12 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s finding that there was no direct physical loss to the Gallups’ home after Flood I was not clearly erroneous, and we affirm. See Peavey Co., 971 F.2d at 1174.