Craig Kimmel v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co

── Craig Kimmel v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 09, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-2274 ____________ CRAIG KIMMEL, Appellant v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE CO. ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1:21-cv-12743) District Judge: Honorable Christine P. O’Hearn ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 8, 2026 Before: HARDIMAN, BOVE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 9, 2026) ____________ OPINION* ____________ HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns an insurance dispute between homeowner Craig Kimmel and his insurer, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (MBIC). Kimmel appeals the District * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Court’s summary judgment for MBIC. We will affirm. I A lightning strike downed a tree on Kimmel’s property. Its impact, Kimmel alleged, caused extensive damage to his home. Kimmel was insured under a homeowners policy issued by MBIC, which provided coverage for physical loss to the insured property, subject to various terms, conditions, and exclusions. MBIC denied Kimmel’s claim after determining that much of the claimed damage already existed and that several policy exclusions otherwise barred coverage. Kimmel filed suit in New Jersey state court for breach of contract and bad faith. MBIC removed the case to federal court, and later moved for summary judgment. Central to this dispute is the insurance policy’s Loss Settlement provision. In relevant part, Section 3.b.(4) states that MBIC “will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete.” App. 403. The parties agree that actual cash value (ACV) means replacement cost less depreciation. Kimmel obtained a repair proposal from a contractor, which estimated the damage would cost $361,015 to fix. The proposal did not provide an ACV figure and the report failed to depreciate Kimmel’s property. Kimmel never undertook the proposed repairs. Citing Section 3.b.(4), MBIC argued that Kimmel’s failure to provide evidence of ACV meant that Kimmel had not provided evidence of his damages, an essential element of his contract claim. The District Court agreed and granted summary judgment for MBIC. Kimmel timely appealed. 2  II1 Under New Jersey law, courts interpret insurance contracts in accordance with their “plain and ordinary meaning.” Flomerfelt v. Cardiello, 997 A.2d 991, 996 (N.J. 2010) (citation omitted). The Policy at issue provides that MBIC “will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete.” App. 403. So until Kimmel completes the actual repair or replacement, Section 3.b.(4) of the Policy’s Loss Settlement provision specifies that he can only recover ACV. Kimmel never provided evidence of ACV. That failure dooms his breach of contract claim because New Jersey law requires him to prove damages. Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 139 A.3d 57, 64 (N.J. 2016). Kimmel