Allen Glyn Sonnier and Nolan Paul Martin (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which dismissal finally disposed of Appellants’ individual and purported class action claims. Appellants possessed automоbile insurance policies from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). Appellants allege that State Farm breached its contractual obligation under the policies when it refused to pay for inspection and testing of Appellants’ seatbelts and seat-belt locking mechanisms after Appellants were involved in automobile accidents. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
Martin and Sonnier were involved in automobile accidents in 2001 and 2004, respectively. They took their automobiles to body shops, where an estimate for necessary repairs was provided. It is undisputed that State Farm paid for repairs as set forth in the estimаtes and in subsequent supplemental estimates. According to Appellants’ vehicle manufacturer and an independent trade group-the Inter-Industry Conference on Collision Repairs-an automobile’s seatbelts and seatbelt locking mechanisms (collectively, “seatbelts”) should be thoroughly inspected after any collision.
1
If a body shop deems such an
The district court orally granted State Farm’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, finding that “based on the contractual agreement to repair, if there is no complaint of a failure, there is nothing to repair.” Appellants appeal, arguing that the term “cost of repair” necessarily includes the cost of the seatbelts inspection because in order to repair something, one must first inspect to determine what is in need of repair.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de
novo
the district court’s order on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
III. DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that Louisiana law applies to this casе. According to Louisiana law, “[w]ords and phrases used in a policy are to be construed using their plain, ordinary and generally prevailing meaning, unless the words have аcquired a technical meaning. An insurance policy should not be interpreted in an unreasonable or strained manner so as to enlarge or to restrict its prоvisions beyond what is reasonably contemplated by its terms or so as to achieve an absurd conclusion.”
Reynolds v. Select Props., Ltd.,
The automobile insurance policies at issue obligate State Farm to pay for “direct and accidental loss of or damage to” the automobile or its equipment. State Farm’s limit, of liability “for
loss
to property or any part of it is the lower of’ the automobile’s actual cash value or the cost оf repair or replacement. The cost of repair or replacement is based upon: (1) a price agreed upon by the insured and insurer; (2) a competitive bid approved by
The Supreme Court of Louisiana has previously interpreted the term “repairs,” finding that it “must be given its generally prevailing meaning and be construed according to its common usage.”
S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v. Barthelemy,
This Court, applying Louisiana law, held that an automobile insurance “policy provision requiring the insurer to pay the cost of repair оr replacement limits the insurer’s liability to the cost of restoring the vehicle to substantially the same physical condition as before the accident so that it is as fit fоr operation as it was prior to the occurrence of the damage.”
Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
Applying these principles to the policy language at issue, we find that Appellants fail to establish that State Farm brеached its contractual duties. State Farm is obligated to pay for loss or damage to Appellants’ vehicles based upon a written estimate. In creating estimates, body shops conduct an inspection, list the items in need of repair, and determine the amount State Farm owes “based upon the prevailing compеtitive price.” Appellants’ argument that an estimate must necessarily include an extensive seatbelts inspection finds no support in the policy language. There is no policy language describing State Farm’s duty to conduct or pay for automobile inspections. State Farm’s duty is to pay for loss or damage to Appellаnts’ vehicles, measured by the cost of repair. That obligation was fulfilled in this case, and Appellants do not further identify anything broken that needs to be fixed.
Absent a contrаctual provision or legislative act calling for an extensive seatbelts inspection upon the occurrence of any automobile collision, we will not enlarge the meaning of “cost of repair” beyond its everyday understanding. The fact that Appellants’ automobile manufacturers and the Inter-Industry Conference on Collision Repairs recommend such an inspection does not change our analysis. We are solely guided by the policy language before us, which requires Statе Farm to pay Appellants for loss to property based upon the cost of repair. There is no indication that State Farm failed to honor this contraсtual obligation. Thus, Appellants’ breach of contract claim is without merit. 2
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. This extensive seatbelts inspection includes examination and testing of the seatbelts, ex-
. If there actually were something wrong with the seatbelts, it would be arguable that State Farm would have to pay for the tests neсessary to determine just what that was and how to fix it as part of the costs of repairing the seatbelt. However, Appellants have refused to allege that there is in fact anything wrong with the seatbelt (or even that there seemed to be something wrong).