Abdul Badmus v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.
709 F. App'x 260
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mutual of Omaha issued a $750,000 accidental-death policy naming no beneficiary initially; Selem Babtunde Badmus was the insured and Abdul Salam Badmus (his brother) became beneficiary in July 2013.
- Badmus submitted a claim in March 2014 alleging Selem died in a January 24, 2014 automobile accident in Lagos, Nigeria; he provided partially completed forms but not requested supporting documents.
- MOOIC investigated via Worldwide Resources, which found discrepancies and concluded the claim information was suspect; MOOIC denied the claim.
- MOOIC later uncovered name-change forms showing the insured’s name change application (dated May 21, 2016) listing the insured at Badmus’s Houston address, and Badmus was indicted for insurance fraud.
- Badmus sued MOOIC in Texas federal court pro se asserting breach of contract, bad faith and violations of the Texas Insurance Code, and misrepresentation; district court granted summary judgment for MOOIC after excluding certain plaintiff exhibits and admitting defendant evidence.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its evidentiary discretion and that MOOIC was entitled to summary judgment because Badmus failed to raise genuine issues of material fact on the insured’s covered death or on other claim elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of plaintiff exhibits (newspaper, affidavits) | Badmus: newspapers/periodicals are self-authenticating and relevant | MOOIC: exhibits are hearsay, irrelevant, untimely, noncompliant with rules | Court: district did not abuse discretion excluding them (forfeiture of some arguments) |
| Admissibility of defendant exhibits (indictment, name-change, license records) | Badmus: evidence not relevant | MOOIC: evidence probative of whether insured is alive | Court: evidence relevant to central issue (insured’s status); denial to strike not abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support breach of contract/payable claim | Badmus: offered documents (employment authorization cards) to show he and insured are different persons and supporting claim | MOOIC: plaintiff failed to prove insured died as required by policy; evidence speculative and insufficient | Court: no genuine dispute of material fact; Badmus failed to prove insured’s covered death; summary judgment for MOOIC |
| Claims dependent on breach (bad faith, Prompt-Payment, misrepresentation) | Badmus: insurer acted improperly and falsified records; statutory and common-law claims asserted | MOOIC: without valid underlying claim there is no basis for statutory or bad-faith recovery; misrepresentation allegations are conclusory and unsupported | Court: all derivative claims fail because breach not established; misrepresentation claim unsupported; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. M&S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 1999) (district court has wide discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Guillory v. Domtar Indus. Inc., 95 F.3d 1320 (5th Cir. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary decisions)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Likens v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2012) (speculation and unsubstantiated assertions cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Weiser-Brown Operating Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 801 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2015) (Prompt-Payment Statute claim requires a valid underlying insurance claim)
- Higginbotham v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 103 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 1997) (bad-faith claim requires insurer acted without reasonable basis to deny payment)