Lu Ann Guy v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. , 216 F. App'x 953 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 9, 2007
No. 06-14250
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00103-CV-FTM-99-DNF
LU ANN GUY, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
ETHEL COY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
(February 9, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Lu Ann Guy (“Guy”) brought an action in the district court
seeking insurance benefits under policies issued by Allstate Floridian Insurance
Company (“Allstate Floridian”). Specifically, Guy alleged that her home suffered
mold damage after Hurricane Charley, and she sought recovery of mold
remediation benefits under her homeowners insurance policy. Guy sought to
maintain the case on behalf of a putative class of insureds who suffered mold
damage to their homes. A magistrate judge recommended that the motion for class
certification be denied. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation and denied class certification on three grounds: lack of
commonality, lack of predominance, and lack of superiority.
This court reviews an order denying class certification for abuse of
discretion. Hines v. Widnall, 334 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003). The district
court abuses its discretion when it “fails to apply the proper legal standard or to
follow proper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact
that are clearly erroneous.” Heffner v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
Inc., 443 F.3d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Birmingham Steel Corp. v.
TVA, 353 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying class certification.
2
Specifically, we agree with the district court that the appellant could not establish
common questions of law and fact because these claims are based on the existence
and extent of mold damage to insured homes after the 2004 Florida hurricanes.
We also agree with the district court’s finding that common issues do not
predominate and that a class action is not a superior method to resolve claims
seeking mold remediation benefits under homeowners insurance policies.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying class certification.
AFFIRMED.1
1
We deny all pending motions as moot.
3