Court Opinion

ID: 9947990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 01:00:50.387176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:50.773972
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30561            Document: 62-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/05/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                    No. 23-30561                               FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                         March 5, 2024
                                  ____________                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
Jennifer Broussard,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Liberty Mutual Insurance,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 2:22-CV-4626
                   ______________________________

Before Dennis, Wilson, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Plaintiff-Appellant Jennifer Broussard appeals the district court’s
dismissal of her claims against Defendant-Appellee Liberty Mutual
Insurance (“Liberty Mutual”) for breach of insurance contract and bad faith.
       We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure de novo, “accepting all well-pleaded facts as

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-30561          Document: 62-1         Page: 2       Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                      No. 23-30561

true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[].”
Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted). Conversely, we review the “[d]enial of a motion to amend . . . for
abuse of discretion.” Stem v. Gomez, 813 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing
Ackerson v. Bean Dredging LLC, 589 F.3d 196, 208 (5th Cir. 2009)).
        This lawsuit arises out of an insurance policy coverage dispute for
losses to Broussard’s property sustained during Hurricane Laura on August
27, 2020. Based on those losses, Broussard brought claims against Liberty
Mutual for breach of insurance contract, bad faith, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress. Liberty Mutual moved to dismiss Broussard’s complaint
for failure to state a claim because Liberty Personal Insurance Company
(“Liberty Personal”), not Liberty Mutual, insured Broussard’s property. In
opposition, Broussard moved for a declaration that her claims were viable.
The district court granted Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss, dismissing all
claims against it with prejudice, and denied Broussard’s motion. Broussard
timely appealed. 1
        Broussard concedes that the district court properly dismissed her
claims against Liberty Mutual on the ground that Liberty Mutual is the
incorrect insurer and, therefore, the improper defendant in the case. Instead,
she argues that she should have been allowed to amend her complaint to add
the correct insurer, Liberty Personal, as a defendant. Yet Broussard did not
request leave from the district court to amend her complaint, but rather asked
the court to declare her claims viable. Thus, the district court did not err in
not providing leave. See Vanderwall v. Peck, 129 F. App’x 89, 91 (5th Cir.
2005) (unpublished) (finding the district court committed no error for
        _____________________
        1
          Broussard did not address the dismissal of her negligent infliction of emotional
distress claim in her opening brief, and therefore forfeited any argument as to this claim.
See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                            2
 Case: 23-30561         Document: 62-1          Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/05/2024

                                      No. 23-30561

dismissing claims with prejudice when the plaintiff had “never requested any
leave to amend” and even more, had “made other filings below which the
district court considered”). Moreover, because Broussard failed to raise the
issue of amending her complaint before the district court, she had forfeited
that argument on appeal. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397
(5th Cir. 2021). 2
        For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

        _____________________
        2
           In her opening brief, Broussard relies on the Supreme Court of Louisiana’s
opinion in Ray v. Alexandria Mall, 434 So. 2d 1083, 1085-86 (La. 1983) for the proposition
that an amendment to her complaint would not be prescribed and therefore would not be
futile. Unlike Ray, however, Broussard did not move to amend below, so we are precluded
from considering her futility argument.

                                            3