Windham Todd Pittman, et al. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 12-13622 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-13622 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-13622 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00202-MEF-SRW WINDHAM TODD PITTMAN, RHONDA LEE PITTMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Stock Company, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (May 20, 2013) Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: * Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. Case: 12-13622 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Plaintiffs-Appellants Windham Todd Pittman and Rhonda Pittman appeal the district court s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee State Farm on the Pittmans breach-of-contract claim. The Pittmans suit arose out of State Farm s denial of claims made under two insurance policies that the Pittmans had with State Farm. After reviewing the parties briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment to State Farm largely1 for the reasons stated in the district court s thorough and wellreasoned published order dated June 21, 2012.2 See Pittman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 868 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Ala. 2012). AFFIRMED. 1 We need not decide whether Alabama law requires an insurance company to prove prejudice in this context. We can assume arguendo, without deciding, that prejudice is required, but we conclude that no reasonable jury could fail to find that Plaintiffs breach their failure to provide the reasonably requested banking and credit card information was prejudicial. 2 State Farm and the Pittmans have filed various motions attempting to supplement the record to show that Mr. Pittman has now been charged with attempted insurance fraud because a stolen diamond was found on him and 56 stolen paintings were recovered in a storage unit rented by his alleged girlfriend. Because we affirm the district court s summary judgment ruling based on the terms of the insurance policies, we need not resolve the motions. Accordingly, all pending motions for leave to file supplemental briefs and record materials are DENIED AS MOOT. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
