In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, No. 2:2005cv04182 - Document 15193 (E.D. La. 2008)
Court Description: INSURANCE (07-6488): ORDER AND REASONS denying (only as it pertains to the Bloom case) 12091 MOTION to Dismiss Flood Water Damage Claims filed by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company; denying 13809 MOTION For Entry of Judgment Pursuant to the Court's Post-Sher CMO filed by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. Signed by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr on 9/22/08.(Reference: INSURANCE (07-6488)(blg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation Doc. 15193 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4182 PERTAINS TO: Bloom C. A. 07-6488 SECTION "K"(2) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court are a Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to the Court’s Post-Sher Case Management Order. (Doc. 13809) and State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss Flood Water Damage Claims (Doc. 12091) (only as it pertains to the Bloom case). These motion seek the dismissal of the above-referenced matter based on the contention that this case only seeks coverage for water damage under policies which exclude such coverage as found by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., No. 07-C2441, 2008 WL 928486, at *6-7 (La. Apr. 8, 2008), and by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 214 (5th Cir. 2007), which decisions hold essentially that the exclusions in Louisiana homeowners’ insurance policies of coverage for damages caused by the flood that resulted from the various levee breaches in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are valid and unambiguous. While there is no doubt that the Bloom case also sought coverage for water damage caused by the levee breaches, in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the petition filed in civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, plaintiffs Christopher Bloom and Gladys Bloom allege wind damage and contend that State Farm has refused to pay all amounts due and owing under the Policy for wind, water and other damages. The first cause of action alleged is for breach of contract which would include failure to pay their wind damage claim. Thus, there is an outstanding issue Dockets.Justia.com preventing the entry of judgment. It must be noted that plaintiffs concur that the water damage claim is precluded by the above-noted Sher decision. Furthermore, while plaintiffs’ opposition to the State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss Flood Water Damage Claims (Doc. No. 12091) was late filed, the Court will still consider this pleading and will deny the “global” dismissal motion with regard to this case as well. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to the Court’s Post-Sher Case Management Order. (Doc. 13809) and State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss Flood Water Damage Claims (Doc. 12091) (only as it pertains to the Bloom case) are DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of September, 2008. STANWOOD R. DUVAL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.
