C.R. Pittman Construction Co. v. National Fire Insurance
453 F. App'x 439
5th Cir.2011Background
- Pittman Construction had two Corps contracts and stored equipment in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.
- Pittman held an all-risks policy with National covering some of the equipment; damage occurred during Katrina.
- Dispute centered on whether damage resulted from wind/rain or flood, with flood excluded by the policy.
- District court granted National summary judgment, relying on Blackwell flood-damage opinion and striking Pittman’s affidavits as self-serving or untimely.
- Court held Pittman affidavits create a fact issue on causation; district court erred in disregarding them; remand ordered.
- Court affirmed summary judgment for small tools/debris removal coverage; remanded other issues for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cause of damage: wind/rain vs. flood | Pittman: wind caused damage before flood; rain entered via torn roof. | National: flooding caused or substantially contributed to damage; flood exclusion applies. | Affirmed in part, reversed in part; fact issue on causation remanded. |
| Effect of self-serving affidavits on summary judgment | Pittman affidavits raise genuine issue of material fact. | District court properly struck or discounted self-serving affidavits. | District court erred in disregarding Pittman affidavits; they create a fact issue. |
| Judicial estoppel and estoppel proof | Estoppel could compel denial of flood-based exclusion. | Corps proceedings ongoing; estoppel not adequately developed on record. | Remanded to address judicial estoppel on a complete record. |
| Coverage for small tools and debris removal | Tools/equipment may be covered under policy terms and pricing. | No adequate evidence that tools were included in premium or listed for coverage. | Affirmed summary judgment for National on small tools and debris removal coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilbe v. Belsom, 530 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2008) (contract interpretation; burden on insured to prove coverage before exclusions apply)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (all-risks policy encompasses fortuitous losses not due to misconduct or fraud)
- Dickerson v. Lexington Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2009) (burden-shifting framework for coverage and exclusions)
- Doerr v. Mobil Oil Corp., 774 So.2d 119 (La. 2000) (insured bears burden to prove loss falls within policy terms; insurer bears burden to prove exclusions)
- Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp., 498 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1974) (self-serving testimony can create credibility issues; not automatically inadmissible at summary judgment)
- Tex. A&M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394 (5th Cir. 2003) (corporate officer testimony on industry practices admissible without expert qualification)
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hixson Bros. Inc., 453 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard; credibility and evidence assessed at summary judgment)
- Gelin v. Hous. Auth. of New Orleans, 456 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard and evidence review)