Glenn R. Carlson, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY (2019)

AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy E. Carlson (“Carlson”) appeals the District Court’s judgment of September 28, 2017 granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant-Appellee Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). Carlson sued Allstate for: (1) breach of contract based on Allstate’s denial of coverage under their homeowner’s insurance policy (the “Allstate Policy”); (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, as enforced through the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 906 F.3d 12, 17 (2d Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “Because interpretation of an insurance agreement is a question of law, we review the district court’s construction of [an insurance policy] de novo.” US. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Fendi Adele S.R.L., 823 F.3d 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

We heard oral argument in the instant case in tandem with two other actions against Allstate. See Valls v. Allstate Ins. Co., 17-3495-cv; Lees v. Allstate Ins. Co., 18-007-cv. For the reasons set forth in the Valls per curiam opinion, which has been filed simultaneously with the instant order, we affirm the summary judgment entered by the District Court because we conclude that the gradual deterioration of basement walls does not constitute a covered “collapse” under the Allstate Policy.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Carlson on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the September 28, 2017 judgment of the District Court.