4-MALI LLC v. Bankers Insurance Co.

Fifth Circuit

4-MALI LLC v. Bankers Insurance Co.

82 F. App'x 970

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2003

Docket03-30460

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 F. App'x 970 (4-MALI LLC v. Bankers Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

4-MALI LLC v. Bankers Insurance Co., 82 F. App'x 970 (5th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

4-Mali L.L.C. (“4-Mali”) appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing its complaint claiming flood insurance coverage. The district court held that 4-Mali’s claims were not covered by a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”), and that, in any event, 4-Mali had failed to comply with the SFIP’s procedural requirements. We hold that the district court did not err in finding that 4-Mali’s failure to provide a proof of loss statement within sixty days of the flood precludes coverage. See Gowland v. Aetna, 143 F.3d 951, 953-54 (5th *971 Cir.1998). As such, we need not evaluate the scope of the SFIP’s coverage. The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM. *

4-Mali L.L.C. (“4-Mali”) appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing its complaint claiming flood insurance coverage. The district court held that 4-Mali’s claims were not covered by a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”), and that, in any event, 4-Mali had failed to comply with the SFIP’s procedural requirements. We hold that the district court did not err in finding that 4-Mali’s failure to provide a proof of loss statement within sixty days of the flood precludes coverage. See Gowland v. Aetna, 143 F.3d 951, 953-54 (5th *971 Cir.1998). As such, we need not evaluate the scope of the SFIP’s coverage. The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. App'x 970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/4-mali-llc-v-bankers-insurance-co-ca5-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack