Awadh v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 687 F. App'x 735

The Awadhs sued their insurer claiming breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing over a missing skid loader; the district court granted summary judgment for the insurer.
The Awadhs appealed, represented by counsel, which under 10th Cir. rules required them to file an appendix containing the relevant parts of the district-court record.
Appellants’ appendix omitted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, the Awadhs’ response, and the insurer’s reply—filings required in the record on appeal.
The insurer submitted a supplemental appendix, but it did not fully cure the deficiencies in the appellants’ appendix.
Many included exhibits lacked the district court’s electronic stamp and clear identification, leaving uncertainty about what was presented to the district court and whether all exhibits were included.
Because the appendix was inadequate, the Tenth Circuit declined to remedy counsel’s omissions, summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment, and did not reach the merits of the coverage dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the insurance policy covered the missing skid loader	Awadhs argued insurer breached contract and acted in bad faith by denying coverage	Insurer denied coverage and moved for summary judgment in district court	Not reached on merits; appeal summarily affirmed due to inadequate record
Whether appellants complied with 10th Cir. appendix requirements	Awadhs implicitly relied on their appendix and supplemental materials	Insurer pointed out omissions and submitted a partial supplemental appendix	Court held appellants’ appendix was inadequate and appellant bears the risk of an incomplete record
Whether required motion papers were in the appendix	Awadhs omitted the insurer’s motion, their response, and insurer’s reply from their appendix	Insurer submitted some missing documents in a supplemental appendix	Court held omission prevented meaningful appellate review and refused to hunt for missing materials
Whether unidentified exhibits can satisfy appendix rules	Awadhs included exhibits without the district court’s electronic stamp or clear identification	Insurer noted lack of identifying marks and possible missing exhibits	Court held unidentified exhibits insufficient; record inadequate; affirmed district court

Milligan-Hitt v. Bd. of Trs., 523 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2008) (appellants must produce an appendix sufficient for appellate consideration)
Burnett v. Sw. Bell Tel., L.P., 555 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not remedy an inadequate appendix and regularly refuses to consider claims predicated on evidence not in the appendix)
Rios v. Bigler, 67 F.3d 1543 (10th Cir. 1995) (the appellant bears responsibility to provide a proper record on appeal)