Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-3595, Section "J" (2)
May 23, 2002
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Defendant Roile Jefferson's ("Jefferson") Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 22). The motion, set for hearing on May 22, 2002, is before the Court on the briefs. Plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Co. ("Scottsdale") opposes the motion. Upon considering the memoranda, pleadings, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Defendant's motion should be DENIED.
Background
This matter arises out of a fire on July 1, 2001, that destroyed Jefferson's property located at 1517-19 North Prieur Street and caused damage to adjoining properties belonging to Defendants Beryl Wingate and Alford Glapion. The property, which Jefferson was renovating, was not occupied at the time of the fire. The fire that destroyed the property was the second fire at the premises within a week. On June 29, 2001, the Fire Department was called to the property because a neighbor reported a small fire at the rear of the property. That first fire was fully extinguished with apparently little damage to the property. Both of the fires were described as simple arson in the Fire Department reports, and it appears that both cases are still being investigated.
At the time of the July 1, 2001, fire, Jefferson's property was insured by Scottsdale for $85,000.00. Scottsdale has refused to pay Jefferson's claim for his own property loss and for the damages caused to his neighbors, as it contends that Jefferson is a suspect in the arson investigation and the policy excludes coverage for arson if the fire was caused by the insured.
On November 30, 2001, Scottsdale filed the instant action for declaratory judgment, requesting that the Court determine issues of liability and coverage under the insurance policy it issued to Jefferson. Jefferson then filed the presently pending motion for summary judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Scottsdale's liability for the fire damage under the insurance contract.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(c)). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating to the court that there is an absence of genuine factual issues. Topalian v. Ehrmann, 954 F.2d 1125, 1132 (5th Cir. 1992). Once the movant meets that burden, the non-moving party must produce evidence sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Id. Accordingly, a factual controversy exists when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. On summary judgment, factual controversies are resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Id.
Jefferson argues that Summary judgment is appropriate in this case because the policy clearly covers the fire loss, unless the fire was intentionally started by the insured. Jefferson contends that Defendants have presented no evidence that he started the fire himself or hired someone to burn his property. Jefferson asserts that the only reason Scottsdale believes he started the fire is simply because he is the insured on the policy. Jefferson argues that he is a successful individual with no financial motive to destroy the property and that Scottsdale has failed to demonstrate that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he destroyed the property.
In response, Scottsdale directs the Court's attention to the fact that the Fire Department believes both fires at Jefferson's property were caused by arson, that the cases are still listed as active investigations by the Fire Department, and that Jefferson acknowledged in his answer to an interrogatory that the Fire Department has advised him that he is a suspect in the July 1, 2001, fire. Additionally, Scottsdale points out that Jefferson has provided inconsistent statements with respect to his ownership of the property and his presence at the property during the time period in question. Finally, Scottsdale argues that the only evidence Jefferson has presented that he did not cause the fire is his own testimony and that any credibility determinations are not properly made on summary judgment.
Having reviewed the memoranda and exhibits, the Court is inclined to agree with Jefferson that Scottsdale may not be able to carry its burden at trial of proving Jefferson is guilty of arson. However, for purposes of this motion, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute, which preclude summary judgment.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Jefferson's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 22) should be and is hereby DENIED.