Rowlett v. Brennan Hart Construction Co et al
ORDER denying 20 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Conventry Health & Life Insurance and denying 22 Motion to Dismiss filed by Brenan Hart Construction Co. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/5/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 3:13CV00246 BSM
BRENAN HART CONSTRUCTION CO., et al.
Defendant Coventry Health & Life Insurance Company’s (“Coventry”) motion to
dismiss [Doc. No. 20] is denied, and defendant Brenan Hart Construction Co.’s (“Brenan
Hart”) motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 22] is denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when the plaintiff fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To meet the 12(b)(6) standard, a complaint
must sufficiently allege facts that will entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. See Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Although detailed factual allegations are not required,
threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, are insufficient. Id.
Plaintiff Thomas Rowlett was an employee of Superior Coating (“Superior”), a
company owned by Bill Downes. In 2006, Rowlett planned to retire from Superior, but
Downes requested that Rowlett remain as an on-call employee. Rowlett was entitled to
insurance coverage from Coventry, and he paid his premiums to Coventry through Superior.
On April 18, 2008, Rowlett was contacted by Superior’s secretary, who directed him to send
a check for his insurance premiums to Brenan Hart, which Rowlett did.
On June 8, 2008, Downes told Rowlett that Superior was closing, and that Downes’s
new company would not provide any health insurance. On June 13, 2008, Rowlett called
Coventry, which told him that while he was still insured, his coverage would expire soon.
Two days later, Rowlett tried to fill a prescription at Walgreens, which informed him he had
no insurance coverage. Rowlett again contacted Coventry, which told him his insurance had
expired on March 31, 2008. Coventry later requested that the medical providers refund the
amounts Coventry paid for Rowlett’s care. Rowlett argues that he paid premiums through
June 2008, and is suing under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Both Coventry’s and Brenan Hart’s motions to dismiss are denied because Rowlett
has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Rowlett claims that he paid insurance
premiums through Superior for the time period in question, and is entitled to coverage.
Rowlett has met his burden at this stage. Additionally, Brenan Hart filed its motion pro se,
however, a corporation must be represented by licensed counsel. See Carr Enterprises, Inc.
v. U.S.A., 698 F.2d 952, 953 (8th Cir. 1983). Thus, Brenan Hart will not be permitted to
proceed in the absence of counsel. Accordingly, Coventry’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 20]
is denied, and Brenan Hart’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 22] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of May 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?