Court Opinion

ID: 2976422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 17:51:45.01994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:21.403337
License: Public Domain

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.
 

  On December 17, 2000, Appellants’ home suffered significant fire damage. Appellants had their homeowner’s insurance policy through State Farm, which accepted coverage for the loss and paid Appellants $747,757.15 for repairs and renovation of the home, personal property, and temporary housing. Thereafter, Appellants hired an independent contractor to renovate their house, with State Farm monitoring the progress of the project to determine Appellants’ need for additional living expenses. While monitoring the progress of the renovation, State Farm’s estimator noticed that the independent contractor was not properly abating the smoked, charred wood in Appellants’ home. State Farm, however, did not inform Appellants of the problem. It is undisputed that making the proper repairs at the time State Farm’s estimator perceived the deficiency would not have been unduly costly and Appellants claim that making the repairs now will cost them $100,000.
 

  Appellants filed suit in state court alleging that State Farm exhibited bad faith by failing to inform them of the contractor’s deficient repair work. After removing the case to federal court on diversity grounds, State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellants failed as a matter of law to demonstrate their claim for breach of the duty of good faith. On May 1, 2007, the district court granted summary judgment for State Farm, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that had Appellants failed to establish a prima facie case that State Farm breached its duty of good faith. Appellants timely appealed that decision.
 

  After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies the law to the facts contained in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.