Olivet Baptist Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Compa , 672 F. App'x 607 ( 2017 )

NONPRECEDENTIAL  DISPOSITION
To  be  cited  only  in  accordance  with  Fed.  R.  App.  P.  32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For  the  Seventh  Circuit
Chicago,  Illinois  60604
Argued  January  11,  2017
Decided  January  13,  2017
Before
JOEL  M.  FLAUM,  Circuit  Judge
FRANK  H.  EASTERBROOK,  Circuit  Judge
DIANE  S.  SYKES,  Circuit  Judge
No.  16-­‐‑1689   Appeal   from   the   United
States   District   Court   for   the
OLIVET  BAPTIST  CHURCH,   Northern   District   of   Illinois,
Plaintiff-­‐‑Appellant,
Eastern  Division.
v.
No.  13  C  1625
CHURCH  MUTUAL  INSURANCE  COMPANY,   Gary  Scott  Feinerman,  Judge.
Defendant-­‐‑Appellee.
Order
Church  Mutual  issued  a  policy  to  Olivet  Baptist  Church,  which  contends  that  it  suf-­‐‑
fered  wind  and  rain  damage  from  a  storm  on  March  1,  2011,  the  day  after  the  policy
went  into  effect.  The  insurer  concluded  that  the  damage  predated  the  policy  and  de-­‐‑
clined  to  pay  the  claim.  This  litigation,  under  the  diversity  jurisdiction,  followed.
The  district  court  entered  summary  judgment  for  the  insurer,  ruling  that  the  Church
had  failed  to  show  that  weather  on  March  1  caused  damage  or  made  existing  damage
worse.  2016  U.S.  Dist.  LEXIS  245294  (N.D.  Ill.  Feb.  29,  2016).  The  district  court  treated
most  of  the  insurer’s  factual  submissions  as  unopposed,  because  the  Church  failed  to
No.  16-­‐‑1689   Page  2
contest  them  in  the  form  required  by  Local  Rule  56.1(b).  We  have  held  that  the  district
court  is  entitled  to  enforce  that  rule  in  precisely  the  way  it  enforced  the  rule  in  this  liti-­‐‑
gation.  See,  e.g.,  Flint  v.  Belvidere,  791  F.3d  764,  767  (7th  Cir.  2015);  Stevo  v.  Frasor,  662
F.3d  880,  886–87  (7th  Cir.  2011);  Ciomber  v.  Cooperative  Plus,  Inc.,  527  F.3d  635  (7th  Cir.
2008).  Yet  the  Church’s  appellate  brief  ignores  those  decisions,  even  though  the  district
judge  cited  them.  Indeed,  it  ignores  the  local  rule  and  does  not  mention  the  principal
reason  the  Church  lost  in  the  district  court.  The  Church’s  reply  brief  continues  to  ignore
the  rule,  though  the  Church  does  ask  us  to  bypass  the  subject  “in  light  of  all  principles
of  equity  and  justice.”  That  approach  is  doomed.  An  appellant  must  engage  head  on  the
reasons  it  lost  in  the  district  court.  It  cannot  hope  that  the  issues  will  go  away.  We  have
held  that  district  courts  may  enforce  their  local  rules  on  how  the  summary-­‐‑judgment
process  is  structured.  No  more  need  be  said  to  resolve  this  appeal.
Bending  over  backward,  the  district  court  looked  at  the  expert  reports  submitted  by
the  Church,  just  to  assure  itself  that  no  injustice  was  being  committed.  It  found  that  one
of  the  Church’s  expert  witnesses  had  not  presented  any  opinion  on  the  vital  causation
question,  and  that  the  other  expert,  who  first  examined  the  property  in  2015,  lacked
both  relevant  experience  and  a  reliable  basis  for  concluding  that  events  of  March  1,
2011,  had  caused  the  damage.  None  of  these  conclusions  is  clearly  erroneous  or  an
abuse  of  discretion.
AFFIRMED