NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0172n.06
Filed: March 28, 2008
Case No. 07-3669
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
BILL PAPPAS; CHRISTINE PAPPAS, )
)
Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY ) DISTRICT OF OHIO
COMPANY, )
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
)
_______________________________________
BEFORE: NORRIS, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. On December 17, 2000, Appellants’ home
suffered significant fire damage. Appellants had their homeowner’s insurance policy through State
Farm, which accepted coverage for the loss and paid Appellants $747,757.15 for repairs and
renovation of the home, personal property, and temporary housing. Thereafter, Appellants hired an
independent contractor to renovate their house, with State Farm monitoring the progress of the
project to determine Appellants’ need for additional living expenses. While monitoring the progress
of the renovation, State Farm’s estimator noticed that the independent contractor was not properly
abating the smoked, charred wood in Appellants’ home. State Farm, however, did not inform
Appellants of the problem. It is undisputed that making the proper repairs at the time State Farm’s
estimator perceived the deficiency would not have been unduly costly and Appellants claim that
making the repairs now will cost them $100,000.
Appellants filed suit in state court alleging that State Farm exhibited bad faith by failing to
inform them of the contractor’s deficient repair work. After removing the case to federal court on
diversity grounds, State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellants failed as a
matter of law to demonstrate their claim for breach of the duty of good faith. On May 1, 2007, the
district court granted summary judgment for State Farm, finding that there were no genuine issues
of material fact and that had Appellants failed to establish a prima facie case that State Farm
breached its duty of good faith. Appellants timely appealed that decision.
After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the
district court’s opinion correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies the law to the facts
contained in the record. The issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
2