Abdur-Rahim Dib Dudar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company

── Abdur-Rahim Dib Dudar v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11789 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11789 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ABDUR-RAHIM DIB DUDAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01480-WMR ____________________ Before JORDAN, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Abdur-Rahim Dib Dudar, a pro se plaintiff, appeals the denial of his motions for reconsideration related to the district court’s USCA11 Case: 25-11789 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11789 grant of summary judgment to State Farm Fire and Casualty Com- pany. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. I Mr. Dudar originally filed this action in the Superior Court of Gwinnet County, Georgia, alleging that State Farm’s denial of two claims for storm-related water damage to his roof and deck breached the terms of his insurance policy. See D.E. 1-1 at 5–8. State Farm removed the case to the Northern District of Georgia based on diversity jurisdiction. See D.E. 1 at 3–4. At the close of discovery, Mr. Dudar and State Farm each moved for summary judgment. See D.E. 39, 41. The district court determined that the damage to the roof and deck was caused by rotting. See D.E. 48 at 6. The rotting was caused by a combination of defective building design—the property’s roof did not contain an adequate slope to displace water—and accumulated water damage from years of storms. See id. Mr. Dudar discovered the deteriora- tion of the roof when making repairs in advance of a coming storm. See id. at 7. During that storm, water flowed into the rotted roof and caused further damage. See id. As to the deck, the building’s defective design caused penetrating water to rot the supporting wall and band joists over time. See id. at 7–8. The rotting caused the deck to collapse during State Farm’s inspection. See id. at 8. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. See id. at 2. It concluded that Mr. Dudar’s losses were ex- cluded by the “Losses Not Insured” provision, of the policy, which USCA11 Case: 25-11789 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 Page: 3 of 11 25-11789 Opinion of the Court 3 stated that State Farm would not cover losses caused by deteriora- tion, inherent vice, or rot. See id. at 11. Nor were those losses cov- ered by the “Collapse” provision because Mr. Dudar failed to prove that the damage was “caused only by” one of the specified causes in that provision. See id. at 14–15. The court further concluded that no other provision covered the roof and deck claims. See id. at 20– 23. Accordingly, the court determined that State Farm was entitled to summary judgment. See id. at 25.