United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED No. 24-30406 March 25, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Ellen Williams,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus Integon National Insurance Company,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:23-CV-5977 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., Circuit Judge: This case arises from an insurance dispute between plaintiff-appellant Ellen Williams and defendant-appellee Integon National Insurance Company (“Integon”) after Integon failed to pay Williams for property repairs sustained as a result of Hurricane Ida. In the district court, Integon asserted that Williams lacked standing to sue on the policy because she was neither a named insured, additional insured, nor third-party beneficiary. Williams countered that she was a third-party beneficiary under Louisiana law. The district court agreed with Integon and granted its 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The court did so without offering Williams an opportunity to amend her Case: 24-30406 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2025

No. 24-30406

complaint, citing futility. Because we find that Williams might be able to plead plausible facts that support third-party beneficiary status, we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions. I. Williams purchased a residential property in Houma, Louisiana, mortgaged by Flagstar Bank, but because she did not insure the home, Flagstar obtained a “lender-placed hazard insurance policy” from Integon at Williams’s expense. 1 The policy named Flagstar as the “Insured” and Williams as the “Borrower.” Williams paid all premiums on this policy and complied with all requirements in the policy at all relevant times. Importantly, Flagstar negotiated for a policy limit of $77,934, rather than opting to use its own insurable interest in the property to cap the liability risk. The policy also included the following salient provision: 13. Loss Payment. WE will adjust each LOSS with [Flagstar] and will pay [Flagstar]. If the amount of LOSS exceeds [Flagstar’s] insurable interest, WE will pay BORROWER any residual amount due for the LOSS, not exceeding the Limit of Liability indicated on the NOTICE OF INSURANCE. Payment for LOSS will be made within thirty (30 days after receipt of satisfactory proof of LOSS from [Flagstar].

_____________________ 1 This type of insurance is referred to as a “lender-placed” or “forced-placed” policy. One Louisiana federal district court described this type of policy as follows: Forced Placed Insurance (“FPI”) is a term used to describe instances where plaintiffs’ mortgage lenders were forced to purchase policies of insurance from the Insurer Defendants to protect their respective interest in property as mortgage collateral when plaintiffs failed to maintain insurance for their property according to the terms of their respective mortgage loan agreements. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig.,