Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Annie Marbury obtained an insurance policy from United National Insurance Company for a house owned by and affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ House of Prayer, which she co-founded and serves as president and registered agent. After Hurricane Laura extensively damaged the property in August 2020, United paid Marbury $47,889. She sued after seeking an additional $192,425.05 that United did not pay.
The district court initially granted United summary judgment, finding that Marbury lacked an insurable interest because she had not shown a personal economic interest in the property. In the first appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court improperly discounted Marbury’s deposition as self-serving and remanded for limited discovery concerning her economic interest, including mortgage payments, furnishings, and other financial investments.
On remand, Marbury submitted an affidavit stating that she used personal funds to pay the mortgage, insurance premiums, and furnishing costs, along with checks and a CashApp statement. The district court again entered summary judgment for United, principally finding the documentary evidence inadequate because it was post-loss, did not correspond to the mortgage, or did not identify the insured property. Marbury appealed again.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded because the district court failed to analyze Marbury’s affidavit and deposition under the governing summary-judgment standards. Although self-serving testimony may be insufficient when it is conclusory, vague, or not based on personal knowledge, it cannot be disregarded merely because it lacks independent documentary corroboration.
The panel did not disagree with the district court’s reasons for discounting Marbury’s documentary evidence. The reversible error was the court’s apparent failure to consider her testimonial evidence—or, if it considered that evidence, its failure to explain whether and why the testimony was impermissibly vague or conclusory. The Fifth Circuit declined to decide in the first instance whether the affidavit and deposition create a genuine dispute of material fact.
The court separately rejected Marbury’s challenge to United’s allegedly untimely reply and the denial of her motion to strike an exhibit. It held that the district court had broad discretion to extend filing deadlines and consider an untimely submission, and that Marbury had not identified substantial prejudice from consideration of the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s self-interested affidavit or deposition may create a genuine factual dispute even without independent documentary corroboration.
- A court may reject testimonial evidence as conclusory, vague, or lacking personal knowledge, but it must actually assess and explain those deficiencies.
- The Fifth Circuit expressed no view on whether Marbury’s testimony ultimately establishes a triable insurable-interest dispute, leaving that question for the district court on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that courts may not impose a categorical corroboration requirement on affidavit or deposition testimony at summary judgment. When testimonial evidence bears directly on a material issue, a district court must evaluate it under the ordinary standards governing specificity, personal knowledge, and conclusory assertions.
The ruling does not establish that Marbury had an insurable interest or that she is entitled to additional policy benefits. It requires the district court to address her testimony expressly and provide a sufficiently detailed explanation before determining whether summary judgment is warranted.