United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 23-30824 FILED January 29, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce McDonnel Group, L.L.C.; All Star Electric, Clerk Incorporated; Jung, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company; Lexington Insurance Company,

Defendants—Appellees,

______________________________ All Star Electric, Incorporated; McDonnel Group, L.L.C.; Jung, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus Lexington Insurance Company; Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company,

Defendants—Appellees, ______________________________ Jung, L.L.C., Case: 23-30824 Document: 74-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2025

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company; Lexington Insurance Company,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 2:18-CV-1380, 2:19-CV-2230, 2:19-CV-10462

______________________________ Before Southwick, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge: This dispute involves the interpretation of a flood deductible provi- sion in a builder’s risk insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers after holding that their interpretation of the deduct- ible’s language was correct. We AFFIRM. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A prior appeal of this case details the relevant facts. We repeat the most significant ones: Beginning in 2014, McDonnel served as the general contractor for the renovation and redevelopment of Jung’s property (“the project”). In early 2015, McDonnel took out insurance from Starr Surplus Lines Company and Lexington Insurance Company (jointly, the “insurers”). During the spring and summer of 2017, the project suffered a number of water intrusions, culminating in a heavy

2 Case: 23-30824 Document: 74-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2025

No. 23-30824

rain that caused extensive damage. McDonnel submitted a notice of loss to the insurers, claiming damages of $3,226,164.30. The parties’ divergent views on the proper deductible give rise to the dispute. The plaintiffs assert that the correct flood deductible is $500,000 and that the insurers should therefore pay a claim of $2,726,164.30 — the flood damage less $500,000. The insurers contend that the proper deductible is $3,443,475. Thus, the claim, in their view, fell $217,310.70 below the deductible, entitling the plaintiffs to nothing under the policy. McDonnel sued in February 2018. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, requesting that the district court adopt their interpretation of the flood deductible amount, and the insurers filed an opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment. On February 11, 2020, the court granted