Riso et al v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, No. 2:2007cv04332 - Document 63 (E.D. La. 2008)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS - ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment 13 is DENIED as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 9/26/08. (cc: Magistrate Judge Chasez) (cab) Modified on 9/26/2008 to edit document type (cab).

Download PDF
Riso et al v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest Doc. 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOSEPH R. RISO, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 07-4332 HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST SECTION "N" (5) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is Defendant Hartford’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 13). The Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions relative to this motion. On the showing made, the Court is not in a position to find that no genuine issue of material facts exists, and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with respect to the timeline of events occurring relative to Plaintiffs’ home being damaged, the extent of that damage, and the source of that damage. In other words, the Court is unable to find, based on evidence to be presented at trial, that a reasonable juror could not parse out Plaintiffs’ damages so as to yield a determination that their home suffered damage from wind, versus flood waters, exceeding that for which Defendant already has paid them. In so concluding, the Court notes, among other things, the extensive damage to Plaintiffs’ roof, as evidenced by photographs attached to Defendant’s summary judgment submission, and documentation submitted by the parties suggesting that the flood waters entering Plaintiffs’ home did not rise to the level of the ceilings therein. Additionally, though Plaintiffs’ Dockets.Justia.com burden in demonstrating their entitlement to relief under La. R.S. 22:658 and/or 22:1220 will be a most difficult one, the Court likewise declines to enter judgment in Defendant's favor at this juncture, on the showing made, with respect to those claims. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. All of these rulings, however, are without prejudice, of course, to the Court's consideration of a properly supported motion made pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure following the submission of evidence at trial. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of September 2008. ________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Clerk to Copy: United States Magistrate Judge Alma Chasez 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.