Opinion ID: 213920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Extended Limits Endorsement

Text: The Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in concluding that they may not benefit from the Extended Limits Endorsement. The Endorsement is available to an insured for an additional premium, and, where applicable, modifies the provision of the paragraph titled How We Pay For A Loss that states: Building Structure Reimbursement. Under Coverage ADwelling Protection and Coverage BOther Structures Protection, we will make additional payment to reimburse you for cost in excess of actual cash value if you repair, rebuild or replace damaged, destroyed or stolen covered property within 180 days of the actual cash value payment. . . . Building Structure Reimbursement will not exceed the smallest of the following amounts: a) the replacement cost . . .; b) the amount actually and necessarily spent to repair or replace the damaged building structure(s) . . .; or c) the limit of liability applicable to the building structure(s) as shown on the Policy Declarations . . . . Building Structure Reimbursement payment will be limited to the difference between any actual cash value payment made for the covered loss to building structures and the smallest of 1), 2) or 3) above. (emphasis added). The Endorsement, where applicable, substitutes the following language into (3): 3) 120% of the limit of liability applicable to the building structure(s) as shown on the Policy Declarations. . . . (emphasis added). All other policy terms and conditions remain the same. The district court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the Extended Limits Endorsement applied to their wind-damage claim. To prevail on their argument, the district court concluded, the Plaintiffs, at the threshold, had to show that they had repaired or replaced their damaged property, and it was undisputed at trial that the Plaintiffs had not made any permanent repairs to their dwelling. The district court concluded that the Extended Limits Endorsement did not apply for an additional reason: it concluded as a factual matter that the Plaintiffs had not insured their property to a hundred percent of its replacement cost, as required under the Endorsement. [10] We agree with the district court's legal conclusion and therefore do not address its alternative factual determination. As is plainly evident from the text of the Extended Limits Endorsement, it modifies only the Building Structure Reimbursement provision, and therefore an insured may benefit from the Endorsement only if she is entitled to Building Structure Reimbursement. The Plaintiffs here are not entitled to any Building Structure Reimbursement for the simple reason that they have not repaired, rebuilt, or replaced the damage to their home. In this way, they are identically situated to the plaintiffs in Bayle. The Bayles sought damages under the building structure reimbursement provision of their policy with Allstate, but it was undisputed that the Bayles neither repaired their damaged property nor replaced it on the same lot. 615 F.3d at 361-62. The district court thus rejected the proposition that any of the Bayles' structural damage should be calculated under the `building structure reimbursement' provision, maintaining that the Bayles were limited to the ACV of the property. Id. at 361. We affirmed in that case, holding that [t]he district court did not err in concluding that the Bayles are not entitled to any payments for structural damage in excess of the ACV of their house. Id. at 362. The same conclusion is inescapable in this case. Because the Plaintiffs are not entitled to payment for Building Structure Reimbursement, the Endorsement does not apply. In an argument raised for the first time on appeal, the Plaintiffs assert that Allstate's inadequate payments prevented them from starting repairs to their home. They argue that because it was effectively Allstate's fault that they did not repair their home, their failure to repair should be excused under Article 1772 of the Louisiana Civil Code. See LA. CIV.CODE art. 1772 (A condition is regarded as fulfilled when it is not fulfilled because of the fault of a party with an interest contrary to the fulfillment.). We decline to address the substance of the Plaintiffs' contention because it was not made below. Under this Circuit's general rule, arguments not raised before the district court are waived and will not be considered on appeal unless the party can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. AG Acceptance Corp. v. Veigel, 564 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Plaintiffs make no argument or showing of extraordinary circumstances in this case, and we therefore adhere to our general rule.