GUNNAR MERTZ V. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE, No. 14-35257 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUNNAR H. MERTZ, AKA G. H. Mertz, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-35257 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00260-AC MEMORANDUM* AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Gunnar H. Mertz, a.k.a. G.H. Mertz, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action seeking coverage under an insurance policy issued under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 of various items allegedly damaged in a flood. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Mertz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he submitted the required proof of loss for the items he claims should have been covered under the policy. See Flick v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 386, 394 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] claimant under a standard flood insurance policy must comply strictly with the terms and conditions that Congress has established for payment. . . . Congress, through a valid act of delegation to FEMA, has authorized payment of flood insurance funds to only those claimants that submit a timely sworn proof of loss.”); see also 44 C.F.R. Pt. 61, App. A (1), §VII (J)(4) (establishing a proof of loss and its required elements as a condition precedent to recovery under the policy). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mertz’s motion for reconsideration because Mertz failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 2 14-35257
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.
