Azim Aziz v. Allstate Insurance Company
875 F.3d 865
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Azim and Kina Aziz submitted a homeowner’s insurance claim to Allstate after a fire damaged their house and personal property; Allstate denied the claim.
- Policy provided dwelling coverage of $60,000 and personal property coverage of $30,000, and required payment of "actual cash value" if the insured did not repair or replace damaged property.
- The Azizes sued Allstate nearly eight years later for breach of contract and vexatious refusal (other claims were dismissed); trial proceeded and evidence was presented on damages.
- At trial the Azizes offered estimates of original purchase prices for personal property and photographs of the damaged house; they did not present evidence of the house’s market value immediately before or after the fire, nor depreciation-adjusted pre-loss values for personal property.
- The district court granted Allstate’s motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the Azizes’ case for failure to present legally sufficient evidence of actual cash value; the Azizes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved breach of contract by showing “actual cash value” of dwelling and personal property | Azizes argued their proof-of-loss, bankruptcy Schedule C, photos, and estimated original purchase prices establish pre-loss value and total destruction | Allstate argued Azizes failed to present evidence of pre-loss and post-loss market values or depreciation needed to calculate actual cash value | Court held Azizes failed to prove actual cash value for dwelling or personal property; JMOL for Allstate affirmed |
| Whether photos and testimony showed the house was a total loss such that post-loss value was zero | Azizes contended photos depict complete destruction -> total loss | Allstate noted testimony showed the house was repairable and plaintiffs wanted it repaired, contradicting total-loss claim | Court held photos and testimony did not establish total loss; no evidence of post-loss value |
| Whether proof-of-loss list (estimates of original purchase price) sufficed to show pre-loss value for personal property | Azim argued proof-of-loss list reflects pre-loss value | Allstate argued list shows original purchase estimates and fails to account for depreciation at time of loss | Court held list insufficient because it did not reflect actual cash value immediately before loss (depreciation not shown) |
| Whether plaintiffs can recover for vexatious refusal absent contract recovery | Azizes argued insurer’s denial was vexatious despite lack of proven policy damages | Allstate argued vexatious-refusal is derivative of breach and requires recovery on policy | Court held vexatious-refusal claim fails where plaintiff obtains no insurance-coverage judgment; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells v. Missouri Prop. Ins. Placement Facility, 653 S.W.2d 207 (Mo. banc 1983) (insurer must pay sum equal to damage done; damages measured by difference in value before and after loss)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Bluewood, Inc., 560 F.3d 798 (8th Cir. 2009) (actual cash value measured by difference in property value immediately before and after loss)
- In re State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 872 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2017) (actual cash value means a depreciated sum reflecting difference before and after loss)
- Tatum v. City of Berkeley, 408 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for JMOL; view evidence most favorably to nonmovant)
- Phipps v. F.D.I.C., 417 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2005) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- Stahlberg v. Travelers Indem. Co., 568 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. App. 1978) (definition of "total loss" and when a building loses identity as a building)