Curtis Pace v. State Farm Fire & Casualty C ( 2011 )

Case: 11-30640 Document: 00511686379 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 6, 2011
No. 11-30640 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
CURTIS PACE; DOROTHY PACE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; JOHN E. MCAULIFFE, JR.;
KEVIN A. SCHNYDER; SCHNYDER’S FLEET REPAIR, L.L.C., doing
business as Schnyder’s Decal Garage; STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; PHILIP W. BANKSTON; PHILIP
W. BANKSTON INSURANCE AGENCY, INCORPORATED,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:11-CV-387
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Curtis and Dorothy Pace appeal from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants in their suit alleging fraud in
connection with the settlement of an underlying personal injury suit. The point
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 11-30640 Document: 00511686379 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2011
No. 11-30640
of contention is the amount of insurance coverage that was available to
defendants Kevin Schnyder and Schnyder’s Fleet Repair, L.L.C. on the date of
an automobile accident between the plaintiffs and Schnyder. Plaintiffs contend
that State Farm had issued a policy with $1 million in coverage to Schnyder but
fraudulently misled them into believing the policy’s limits were only $300,000.
We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons stated
in the district court’s opinion.
The unambiguous policy documents show that on the date of the accident
State Farm had issued a policy to Schnyder with coverage of $300,000. An
amended declarations page, referencing the same policy number, shows that four
months after the accident, the policy limits were amended to $1 million, the
name of the insured was changed to Schynder’s business, and an additional
premium was charged to Schynder. There is no evidence supporting the
plaintiffs’ contentions that there were two separate policies, that there was
$1 million in coverage available on the date of the accident, or that the
defendants fraudulently altered the policy documents. Plaintiffs’ speculative
assertions and arguments to the contrary are insufficient to defeat summary
judgment. See Sanches v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 F.3d
156, 165 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Conclusional allegations and denials, speculation, and
unsupported assertions are insufficient to avoid summary judgment.”). Because
the unambiguous policy documents do not support plaintiffs’ case, summary
judgment was proper. See LA. CIV. CODE. art. 2046 (“When the words of a
contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further
interpretation may be made in search of the parties’ intent.”).
AFFIRMED.
2