Romious et al v. Allstate Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JUAN ROMIOUS, ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-6677
ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. 	SECTION: D(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Allstate Insurance Company.1 Plaintiffs Juan Romious and Martha Scott Romious
did not file an opposition to the Motion. 	After careful consideration of Defendant’s
memorandum, the record, and the applicable law, the Motion is GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case arises out of property damage due to the landfall of Hurricane Ida in
southeast Louisiana in August 2021.2 	Plaintiffs sustained property damage due to
the hurricane and filed a claim with their insurance company, Allstate.3 Allstate’s
adjuster inspected the damage, and Plaintiffs’ claim proceeded through Allstate’s
claims process.4 Plaintiffs filed suit in the 40th Judicial District Court in St. John the
Baptist Parish in August 2023, alleging breach of the insurance contract and bad
1 R. Doc. 27.
2 R. Doc. 27-2 at ¶ 1. The Court draws the factual allegations from Defendants’ Statement of
Uncontested Facts, which the Court accepts as true due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the instant
Motion. L.R. 56.2 (“All material facts in the moving party’s statement will be deemed admitted, for
purposes of the motion, unless controverted in the opponent’s statement.”). The Court also
supplements Defendants’ Statement of Uncontested Facts with allegations from Plaintiff’s state court
Petition. (R. Doc. 1-1). The Court uses those facts for context and does not afford them the benefit of
the truth.
3 R. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 7-9.
4 Id. at ¶ 10-16.
Case 2:23-cv-06677-WBV-KWR Document 29 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 7

2
faith under La R.S. §§ 22:1892 and 22:1973. The case was removed to this Court on
November 3, 2023, and entered the Hurricane Ida CMO. The case was returned to
the docket of the undersigned district judge on June 17, 2025.5
The Court’s Scheduling Order6 required Plaintiffs to provide Defendant with
written expert reports by October 7, 2025. As of the date of the present Motion,
Defendant has not been provided with any expert reports or any evidence that
substantiates the losses Plaintiffs incurred from Hurricane Ida.7 Furthermore,
Plaintiffs have not provided any estimate or report regarding repairs made to their
property 	after 	they 	initially 	agreed 	to 	produce 	such 	a 	report 	in 	their 	initial
disclosures.8
On November 14, 2025, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff cannot meet their burden of proof at a trial on the
merits.9 Defendant states that Plaintiff has the burden to prove each fact essential
to recover from an insurance claim and that the claim falls within the limits of the
insurance coverage.10 Defendant argues that because Plaintiffs have not produced
expert reports, estimates, photographs, or proof of payments made to repair the
house, they cannot meet their burden of proof for the claims alleged.11 Furthermore,
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they provided a
5 R. Doc. 18.
6 R. Doc. 20.
7 R. Doc. 27-2 at ¶ 4.
8 Id. at ¶¶ 5-7.
9 R. Doc. 27.
10 R. Doc. 27-1 at p. 2.
11 Id.
Case 2:23-cv-06677-WBV-KWR Document 29 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 7

3
satisfactory proof of loss to Defendant, as is required by Louisiana law.12 Lastly,
Defendant states that Plaintiffs will not be able to establish proof of damages because
there is no evidence that invoices have been produced regarding the alleged repair of
the damaged property.13
The motion was set for submission on December 9, 2025, with any responses
in opposition due by December 1, 2025.14 As of the date of this Order and Reasons, no
opposition has been filed.15
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
“if 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.”16 A dispute is “genuine” if it is
“real and substantial, as opposed to merely formal, pretended, or a sham.”17 Further,
a fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law.”18 	When assessing whether a genuine dispute regarding any material fact
exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from
making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”19 While all reasonable
12 Id. at pp. 2-3.
13 Id. at p. 3.
14 R. Doc. 27-5
15 As pointed out in Defendant’s Motion, and recognized by the Court, Plaintiff has failed to comply
with additional deadlines set in the Court’s Scheduling Order as Plaintiff failed to file its witness and
exhibit list by November 6, 2025, and to date has failed to file any witness or exhibit list. See R. Doc.
20.
16 FED. R. C IV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).
17 Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo Cnty., 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Wilkinson v. Powell,
149 F.2d 335, 337 (5th Cir. 1945)).
18 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
19 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribus. Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398–99 (5th Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted).
Case 2:23-cv-06677-WBV-KWR Document 29 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 7

4
inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, a party cannot defeat
summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or “only
a scintilla of evidence.”20 Instead, summary judgment is appropriate if a reasonable
jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.21
If the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive
issue, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the
evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the
nonmoving party’s claim.22 The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must
go beyond the pleadings and, “by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial.’”23
Finally, a party moving for summary judgment is not entitled to have their
motion granted simply because their motion is unopposed.24 	Rather, its burden
remains the same as if the motion was opposed; the moving party must demonstrate
that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.25 That being said, where a party fails to file a response
20 Id. (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
21 Id. at 399 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).
22 See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–23.
23 Id. at 324 (quoting FED. R. C IV. P. 56(e)).
24 Homelife in the Gardens, LLC v. Landry, 2018 WL 341703, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 9, 2018) (quoting
Day v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 768 F.3d 435, 435 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)).
25 Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
Case 2:23-cv-06677-WBV-KWR Document 29 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 7

5
to a summary judgment motion, the court may accept as undisputed all of the facts
listed in the moving party’s statement of undisputed material facts.26
III. 	ANALYSIS
Louisiana law “places the burden on the plaintiff to establish every fact
essential 	to 	recovery 	and 	to 	establish 	that 	the 	claim 	falls 	within 	the 	policy
coverage.”27 As part of this burden, a plaintiff must also prove the amount of his or
her property damage claim.28 Defendant states in its list of undisputed facts for
summary judgment that Plaintiffs have failed to deliver any expert reports by the
deadline 	in 	the 	Scheduling 	Order 	and 	have 	not 	provided 	any 	evidence 	that
substantiates their claim for damages resulting from the hurricane.29 As a result,
there is no record evidence regarding the amount of the damages that the Plaintiffs
are seeking. Because proving the amount of a property damage is an essential
element of an insurance property damage claim under Louisiana law and because
Plaintiffs 	have 	failed 	to 	provide 	any 	affidavits, 	depositions, 	answers 	to
interrogatories, or other competent evidence that establishes the amount of the
property 	damage 	sustained 	as 	a 	result 	of 	the 	storm, 	summary 	judgment 	is
appropriate for this claim.
26 See Lamelas v. Abud, No. CV 22-739, 2023 WL 3340851, at *1 (E.D. La. May 10, 2023) (quoting
Gonzales v. Abdurasulov, No. 3:22-cv-00654, 2022 WL 2717633, at *1 (W.D. La. July 13, 2022)); see
also Local Rule 56.1.
27 Ho v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 862 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/31/03); see also
Williams v. Allstate Indem. Co., 359 F. App'x 471, 473 (5th Cir. 2009); Dickerson v. Lexington Ins. Co.,
556 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Under Louisiana law, the insured must prove that the claim
asserted is covered by his policy.”).
28 Feingerts v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 265 So. 3d 62, 75 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/13/19), writ
denied, 278 So. 3d 364 (La. 9/6/19).
29 R. Doc. 27-2 at ¶¶ 4-7.
Case 2:23-cv-06677-WBV-KWR Document 29 Filed 01/02/26 Page 5 of 7

6
In regards to the claims for bad faith, a claim for statutory bad-faith penalties
under Louisiana Revised Statutes §§22:1892 and 1973 requires the insured to make
a showing that “(1) an insurer has received satisfactory proof of loss, (2) the insurer
fails to tender payment within thirty days of receipt thereof, and (3) the insurer's
failure to pay is arbitrary, capricious or without probable cause.”30 A satisfactory
proof of loss under the statute is one “that which is sufficient to fully apprise the
insurer of the insured's claim.”31 To make a claim under these statutes, it is the
plaintiff’s burden to prove that he or she has provided the insurer with a satisfactory
proof of loss. Here, Plaintiffs have pointed to no affidavits, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, or other record evidence that demonstrates that a genuine issue of
material fact exists as to whether Plaintiffs provided Defendant with a satisfactory
proof of loss. Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material
fact regarding the satisfactory proof of loss, an essential element of a bad faith
insurance claim under the statute, summary judgment on this claim is appropriate.
Defendant, the movant, has pointed to the lack of record evidence regarding
essential elements of Plaintiffs’ claims. As the Plaintiff will bear the burden of proof
at trial, the burden on summary judgment has shifted, and Plaintiffs have now failed
to go beyond the pleadings to demonstrate “specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.”32 After a reasonable time for discovery, summary judgment
is appropriate “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
30 Louisiana Bag Co. v. Audubon Indem. Co., 999 So. 2d 1104, 1112–13 (La. 12/2/08).
31 McDill v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 475 So. 2d 1085, 1089 (La. 1985).
32 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).
Case 2:23-cv-06677-WBV-KWR Document 29 Filed 01/02/26 Page 6 of 7

7
existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will
bear the burden of proof at trial.”33 For that reason, the Court finds that summary
judgment must be granted and, because there is no genuine dispute of material fact,
that Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for 	Summary
Judgment34 is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, January 2, 2026.
_____________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
33 Id. at 322.
34 R. Doc. 27.
Case 2:23-cv-06677-WBV-KWR Document 29 Filed 01/02/26 Page 7 of 7