Patoo Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Landmark American Insurance Company et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting 17 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim against AIG. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 7/15/2014. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

PATOO ENTERPRISES, INC.
and SAM PATTERSON TRUCK
BROKERS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-863-T-24 TGW

LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY
INSURANCE COMPANY, and
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
INC.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant American International Group, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Doc. No. 25). As explained
below, the motion is granted.
I. Standard of Review
In deciding a motion to dismiss, the district court is required to view the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Murphy v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 208 F.3d 959,
962 (11th Cir. 2000)(citing Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999)). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon
which he bases his claim. Instead, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.

1955, 1964 (2007)(citation omitted). As such, a plaintiff is required to allege “more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.
at 1965 (citation omitted). While the Court must assume that all of the allegations in the
complaint are true, dismissal is appropriate if the allegations do not “raise [the plaintiff’s] right
to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citation omitted). The standard on a 12(b)(6) motion
is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail in his or her theories, but whether the
allegations are sufficient to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery in an attempt to prove the
allegations. See Jackam v. Hospital Corp. of Am. Mideast, Ltd., 800 F.2d 1577, 1579 (11th Cir.
1986).
II. Background
Plaintiffs Patoo Enterprises, Inc. (“Patoo”) and Sam Patterson Truck Brokers, Inc.
(“SPTB”) allege the following in their complaint (Doc. No.1): SPTB is a licensed transportation
broker, and Patoo is the parent company for SPTB. Plaintiffs purchased a commercial general
liability (“CGL”) insurance policy from Defendant Landmark American Insurance Company
(“Landmark”).
Additionally, Plaintiffs purchased an umbrella policy from Defendant Commerce &
Industry Insurance Company (“Commerce”). Defendant American International Group, Inc.
(“AIG”) is the parent company of Commerce.
While the CGL and umbrella policies were in effect, a car accident occurred, and a
lawsuit was filed against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs made claims for coverage under both policies, and
their claims were denied. With respect to the umbrella policy issued by Commerce, Plaintiffs
allege that “Corey Sanders, Senior Analyst for AIG Excess Casualty Claims, sent a letter to

2

counsel for Plaintiffs denying coverage” and that Defendant AIG “was the entity handling
Plaintiffs’ claim made with Commerce under the Umbrella Policy.” (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 57-58).
As a result of the denial of their claims, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, asserting claims
against Defendants. Specifically, in Count I, Plaintiffs assert a declaratory judgment claim
against Landmark, seeking a declaration that Landmark is required to provide coverage under the
CGL policy and to contribute to Plaintiffs’ defense in the underlying action. In Count II,
Plaintiffs assert a declaratory judgment claim against Commerce and AIG, seeking a declaration
that Commerce and AIG are required to provide coverage under the umbrella policy and to
contribute to Plaintiffs’ defense in the underlying action.
III. Motion to Dismiss
AIG moves to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim against it, arguing: (1) the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over it, and (2) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against it. Because the
Court agrees that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against AIG, the Court need not reach AIG’s
personal jurisdiction argument.
AIG argues that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against it, because AIG is a separate and
distinct company from Commerce, the entity that issued the umbrella policy. This argument is
consistent with the allegations in the complaint, as Plaintiffs allege that Commerce issued the
umbrella policy and that AIG is the parent company of Commerce. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 6, 48, 58).
Accordingly, AIG argues that since it did not issue the umbrella policy to Plaintiffs, it is not a
proper party with respect to a declaratory judgment claim regarding the obligation to provide
coverage and a defense under the umbrella policy. The Court agrees with AIG.
Plaintiffs respond that because they allege that AIG handled their claim under the

3

umbrella policy and attach a document to the complaint1 on AIG letterhead denying their claim
under the umbrella policy, AIG is a proper party to this lawsuit. Thus, argue Plaintiffs, because
AIG denied their claim under the umbrella policy, AIG is a proper party.
Plaintiffs’ allegation that AIG made the decision to deny their claim under the umbrella
policy does not make AIG a proper party to a declaratory judgment action regarding coverage
under the umbrella policy. If the Court determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to coverage and a
defense under the umbrella policy, the only entity required to provide such coverage and defense
is Defendant Commerce, as Commerce is the entity alleged to have issued the umbrella policy.
Thus, Commerce is the only proper party with respect to Count II, and AIG must be dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that AIG’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 17) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claim against AIG is dismissed.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of July, 2014.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

1

(Doc. No. 1-7)
4