The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BOYD ERIKSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO.: 22-3814
AMERICAN SECURITY SECTION: T (4)
INSURANCE COMPANY
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment1 filed by Defendant American
Security Insurance Company (hereinafter “ASIC” or “Defendant”). Boyd Erikson (“Plaintiff”)
previously moved for an extension to time to respond to the Motion, which the Court granted.2 To
date, however, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. The Motion is therefore deemed unopposed.
For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
Summary Judgment is proper where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”3 The party seeking
summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact.4 “Once the movant does so, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to establish an issue of fact
that warrants trial.”5
In this Hurricane Ida property damage insurance case, Plaintiff seeks to recover from ASIC
pursuant to an insurance policy that covered residential property in New Orleans, Louisiana. In its
1 R. Doc. 9.
2 R. Docs. 10 & 11.
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
4 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).
5 Smith v. Reg'l Transit Auth., 827 F.3d 412, 420 n.4 (5th Cir. 2016).
1
Motion, however, ASIC asserts that Plaintiff has no legally cognizable claim for relief to enforce
the policy because Plaintiff is not an insured, additional insured, nor a third-party beneficiary of
the insurance contract.6 Rather, the subject policy was issued to Wells Fargo, N.A. #936 (“Wells
Fargo”), Plaintiff’s lender, and that Plaintiff is merely identified as a “Borrower” on the policy’s
declarations page.7 Accordingly, ASIC posits that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any payment
for losses sustained to the covered property.8 For this reason, ASIC also contends that Plaintiff has
no legal standing to assert a bad faith claim under Louisiana law.9 ASIC therefore contends that
Plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof at trial and summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims are
warranted.10
After reviewing the Complaint, the Motion and supporting exhibits, as well as the
applicable law, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is not a named insured, additional named insured, or
an intended third-party beneficiary of the policy. The terms of the policy’s “Loss Payment” clause
states that all policy benefits are payable to Wells Fargo, the named insured.11 Plaintiff therefore
lacks standing to enforce the insurance contract.12 ASIC is entitled to summary judgment in its
favor.
6 R. Doc. 9-1 at 1.
7 R. Doc. 9-1 at 2.
8 R. Doc. 9-1 at 2.
9 La. R.S. 22:1892, La. R.S. 22:1973
10 R. Doc. 9-1 at 4.
11 R. Doc. 1-2 at 20.
12 See Haley v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 17281800, at *4 (E.D. La. Nov. 29, 2022); James v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co.,
2021 WL 5795292 (E.D. La. Dec. 7, 2021); Turner v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 696907, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar. 8,
2022); Davis v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 4269199, at *2 (W.D. La. Sept. 20, 2021); Brown v. Am. Modern Home
Ins. Co., 2017 WL 2290268, at * 4 (E.D. La. May 25, 2017).
2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ASIC is GRANTED
and all claims against this Defendant asserted by Plaintiff Boyd Erikson are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of June 2023.
REG GERARD GUIDRY —
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE