Express Jewelry Enters. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 25-1783
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0234n.06

Case No. 25-1783

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FILED May 26, 2026 ) EXPRESS JEWELRY ENTERPRISES, INC., KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk d/b/a Haks Jewelry, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ) MICHIGAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, ) ) OPINION Defendant-Appellee. ) )

Before: McKEAGUE, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.

READLER, Circuit Judge. Mother Nature’s excesses resulted in a water-logged store and,

ultimately, an insurance dispute. Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc., and National Fire Insurance

Company of Hartford have a difference of opinion on whether Express Jewelry’s insurance policy

covers damage to its store caused by an evening of torrential rain. After examining the record, the

district court determined at summary judgment that the policy does not. We agree.

I.

Express Jewelry’s store in Dearborn, Michigan, was damaged during a storm of historic

proportions. Over the course of the evening of June 25, 2021, extending into the early hours of

June 26, Dearborn experienced seven and a half inches of rain. Unfortunately, the precipitation

overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, which was designed to handle at most three inches of rain No. 25-1783, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

per day. With more water present than the sewer could handle, Express Jewelry’s drainage system

(which led into the city sewer system) backed up and flooded the store’s basement.

Express Jewelry filed a claim with its insurer, National Fire, for the damage to its basement

caused by the high water. National Fire, however, denied the claim. In so doing, National Fire

pointed to language in Express Jewelry’s insurance policy explaining that the insurer would not

“pay for . . . damage to . . . [t]he interior of any building . . . caused by rain . . . unless” the “building

. . . first sustains actual damage to the roof or walls by wind or hail.” R. 15-2, PageID 482. But,

Express Jewelry countered, it had purchased a coverage extension. Under that provision, National

Fire would “pay for loss or damage . . . caused by water that backs up or overflows from a sewer

[or] drain.” Id. at PageID 607. That extension, however, was subject to its own carveout: National

Fire would not pay if the “emanation of water from a sewer or drain . . . [was] caused by[] or is

the result of” a flood. Id. The policy in turn defined a flood as “a general and temporary condition

of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas.” Id. at PageID 497; see also id. at

PageID 614 (incorporating the original policy’s definition of “flood”). Because a flood caused the

basement damage, National Fire concluded the flood exclusion relieved it from covering any loss.

Express Jewelry also filed a claim for water damage to its ground floor. The parties

disputed the source of the ground floor damage. Express Jewelry initially told the insurer that the

water came up from the basement via the elevator, which had filled with water while on the

basement level. When the elevator was activated, it rose to the first floor and opened its doors,

spilling water across the store’s main floor. National Fire’s inspector concurred, noting that there

was no sign of water leaking from the ceiling onto the main floor or damage to the building’s roof

that would otherwise explain the presence of water on the ground floor. National Fire informed

2 No. 25-1783, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

Express Jewelry in December that the policy likewise did not cover this damage because of the

flood exclusion.

Express Jewelry then seemingly changed its story. Seeking payment under the policy’s

coverage for rain damage when the building first sustained wind damage to its walls, the jeweler

attributed the flooding to a wall partly destroyed by heavy wind, which allegedly allowed water to

enter from that point onto the ground floor. Express Jewelry also claimed that it had new images

and a video taken by the store’s owner that proved wind damage was the source of the ground

floor flooding.

Express Jewelry’s new documentation triggered an additional inspection by National Fire.

Two main conclusions surfaced. One, that a hole in the building’s side exposed by displaced siding

did cause water to leak into the store, as depicted in Express Jewelry’s photographs and video. But

two, that any water leaking from the hole in the building’s side was not the source of the June

water damage because any exposure from the wall did not begin before August at the earliest.

Critical to that second conclusion was metadata from the video and images revealing that they

were taken in December (after the claim was denied), not during the June storm, as Express Jewelry

insisted. Another firm analyzed the metadata to confirm that the video and pictures were created

using iPhone software that Apple did not release until October of that year. To the same end,

images of the building from August revealed no damage to the siding. That reality was consistent

with the fact that there was not the sort of staining or organic growth around the leaking areas one

would expect to find if the damage had been present for over six months. Based on these findings,

National Fire again denied Express Jewelry’s claim.

3 No. 25-1783, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

Displeased with this outcome, Express Jewelry filed suit for declaratory judgment and

breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to National Fire, prompting

today’s appeal.

II.

We begin with the legal framework guiding our review. Start with the standard by which

we measure the district court’s conclusion. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo.

Delek US Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 32 F.4th 495, 497 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Fisher v.

Nissan N. Am., Inc., 951 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2020)). In so doing, we construe the evidence in

the light most favorable to Express Jewelry. Id. (quoting Fisher, 951 F.3d at 416). Having done

so, we then determine whether any issue of material fact would prevent the award of summary

judgment and, if not, whether National Fire was entitled to judgment in its favor. See Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56).

Next, the substantive rules. Michigan law controls our interpretation of the parties’

insurance contract. See Tooling, Mfg. & Techs. Ass’n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 693 F.3d 665, 670

(6th Cir. 2012). In the Wolverine State, standard rules of contract interpretation apply to insurance

contracts. McDonald v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 747 N.W.2d 811, 820 (Mich. 2008). Our task is

thus to enforce the contract as written. Kyocera Corp. v. Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC, 886

N.W.2d 445, 451 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Mahnick v. Bell Co., 662 N.W.2d 830, 833

(Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (per curiam)). To do so, we ask first whether the contractual language is

unambiguous. Port Huron Educ. Ass’n, MEA/NEA v. Port Huron Area Sch. Dist., 550 N.W.2d

228, 237 (Mich. 1996). If so, we need not wade into the deeper waters of consulting extrinsic

evidence. See Kyocera Corp., 886 N.W.2d at 451 (quoting Mahnick, 662 N.W.2d at 833). Lastly,

with regard to Express Jewelry’s claim that National Fire breached the parties’ contract, the

4 No. 25-1783, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

“burden of proof lies with the insured to show that the policy covered the damage suffered.”

Solomon v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 622 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).

A. Express Jewelry contends that the damage to its store’s basement was a covered loss.

Recall that Dearborn’s sewers were overwhelmed by rain, which resulted in the basement drain

backing up, flooding the basement. That backdrop tees up today’s legal question: Was the backup

“caused by[] or . . . the result of” a “general and temporary condition of partial or complete

inundation of normally dry land areas”? R. 15-2, PageID 497, 607. If so, the policy’s flood

carveout would control and exclude any liability for National Fire.

We believe it was. The downpour on the night of June 25 amounted to an “inundation of

normally dry land areas.” National Fire presented multiple pieces of evidence at summary

judgment that declared the event a flood. Indeed, even Express Jewelry’s owner described the

event as a flood. And it is easy to see why. There was too much precipitation that evening for the

city sewer to handle, so water pooled in normally dry areas. The pooled water precluded the sewers

from draining properly, thereby keeping them overwhelmed for a sustained period. And everyone

seemingly acknowledged that this rainfall and pooling caused the drain backup.

On this record, the contract’s application is straightforward. The excess rainfall resulted

in a “condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas.” R. 15-2, PageID

497. That inundation overwhelmed the sewer systems, causing the drain backup. And it was this

backup—a consequence of inundation of typically dry land—that resulted in water emanating from

Express Jewelry’s drain and the subsequent damage to the basement. The policy language

therefore excludes coverage for the damage.

Resisting this natural reading, Express Jewelry says the damage was caused not by a flood

but by “inadequate capacity” in the sewer system. Appellant Br. 18. That is because a sewer

5 No. 25-1783, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

system—as an area that is not normally dry—cannot be flooded. Therefore, Express Jewelry

concludes, the loss resulted from sewer backup, not flooding, which the company says is a covered

loss.

Not quite. Putting aside the question of whether the sewer itself could flood, the sewer’s

capacity crisis was undoubtedly a result of flooding. Absent excessive rain, there would have been

no inundation of normally dry land, no capacity issues with the sewer, and no problems with the

sewer draining rather than backing up into Express Jewelry’s basement. So while Express Jewelry

might recast this development as a “sewer backup event,” Reply Br. 3–4, our inquiry, guided by

the policy’s language, is whether flooding caused that event. It did.

Express Jewelry paints our conclusion as inconsistent with a host of other sources it says

supports its position, including a Dearborn city government statement as well as a district court

opinion interpreting an insurance policy with a different flood exclusion. But these general sources

tell us little about the specific language in this contract. Nor does Express Jewelry explain how

these sources otherwise bear on the question here.

All told, the plain, unambiguous language of the exclusion applies to the basement flooding

Express Jewelry experienced, meaning National Fire was correct to deny coverage.

B. That leaves Express Jewelry’s claim for coverage for water damage to the main floor.

Consistent with the foregoing discussion, if the source of the water damage was sewer backup that

rose to the main floor via the elevator, the damage is not insured. National Fire offered evidence

to that effect, including an insurance adjuster’s report finding no evidence of damage to the exterior

walls or any leaking from the ceiling and instead ascribing the water’s source to the basement. A

forensic engineer’s separate inspection likewise revealed no evidence of wind damage to the

building’s walls.

6 No. 25-1783, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

Express Jewelry has not convinced us otherwise. In response to National Fire’s summary

judgment motion, Express Jewelry had to put forward evidence to support a contrary view of the

cause of the damage to the store’s main floor. See Solomon, 622 N.W.2d at 103. Looking back at

Express Jewelry’s complaint, its theory of causation at that point was that “large amounts of

rainwater . . . could not exit” the store “due to a blockage in its drain.” R. 1-2, PageID 14. Yet as

the district court recognized, the contract’s language, which excludes damage caused by drain

backups that are a result of flooding, forecloses that theory of causation.

Express Jewelry’s alternative theory fares no better. According to that line of thinking, the

damage to the main floor was the result of wind damage from the June storm, which created an

opening in the side of the building, allowing water into the main floor. Express Jewelry’s only

evidence to that effect, however, was video and photographs the store’s owner produced. And that

evidence is (at best) deeply suspect. Unrefuted metadata analysis produced by National Fire

revealed that the store owner’s video and photographs were created in December, six months after

the June storm. The insurer likewise provided pictures showing that there was no hole in the

store’s wall even as late as August, again, months after the storm.

Express Jewelry denies those conclusions, pointing to its owner’s deposition testimony that

the photos and video were taken in June. But “self-serving testimony” that is “blatantly and

demonstrably false” and supported only by “[c]onclusory statements unadorned with supporting

facts” is not enough to survive summary judgment. Davis v. Gallagher, 951 F.3d 743, 750 (6th

Cir. 2020); Viet v. Le, 951 F.3d 818, 823 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Alexander v. CareSource, 576

F.3d 551, 560 (6th Cir. 2009)). As no reasonable jury would believe Express Jewelry’s account

of the facts, the district court did not err in finding there was no genuine dispute over whether the

June storm caused the hole in the store wall. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

7 No. 25-1783, Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.

253, 289 (1968)). In the end, without any reliable evidence that wind damage from the June storm

was the cause of its loss, Express Jewelry cannot carry its burden at summary judgment. See

Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 (“Rule 56[] mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party

who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that

party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”).

* * * * *

We affirm.