Wood v. Hartford Ins. Co.

Wood v. Hartford Ins. Co.

Opinion

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE

Evelyn Wood owns a Panama City home that Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest ("Hartford") insured. ECF No. 24 at 10. Hurricane Michael damaged the home in October 2018, and Hartford "afforded coverage" and paid some $54,000 for repairs. Id. at 83-85 ¶¶ 2-3, 9. It also enrolled Wood in a Managed Repair Program that handled contracting for the repairs. Id. at 84 ¶¶ 3-4; id. at 184:23-185:13. The hired contractors did shoddy work, then walked off the job, leaving the repairs only partially completed. See ECF No. 26 at 1; ECF No. 29 at 1; ECF No. 24 at 129. So Wood hired a new contractor and asked Hartford for additional payments based on the new contractor's estimates. ECF No. 26 at 1-2; ECF No. 29 at 4. When Hartford didn't pay, Wood sued. ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 11-12.

Hartford [*2]  has now moved for summary judgment.¹ ECF No. 26. The parties' briefs² focus on who bears the burden of proving causation for any remaining damage to Wood's home. See, e.g., ECF No. 26 at 2; ECF No. 29 at 2. But at the October 8 motion hearing, ECF No. 45, it became clear that the dispositive issue is whether Wood has shown that the money Hartford already paid her isn't enough. She must do so by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" that she can ultimately produce in admissible form. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(2).

At the hearing, the parties acknowledged Wood has three shots at meeting this threshold burden: (1) contractor David Cianchetti's estimate and affidavit, ECF No. 36 at 3-241 (nearly $200,000 in outstanding repairs); (2) a RestoPro770 mold remediation estimate Wood submitted for supplemental payment, ECF No. 24 at 267:24-269:8; ECF No. 30 at 155-71 (almost $20,000 in costs); or (3) Hartford's adjustor's re-inspection report, ECF No. 24 at 128-30 (just under $30,000 in outstanding repairs). Having viewed the evidence and drawn all reasonable inferences in Wood's favor, I conclude that Wood cannot rely on the former two estimates, but she can rely on the third to satisfy her burden on summary [*3]  judgment. With Wood's threshold burden satisfied, the burden shifts to Hartford to demonstrate an excluded cause of loss. Since it cannot do so, Hartford's motion is denied.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.