Patton v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 19 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 8/5/11. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROBERT PATTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE CO.,
et al.,
Defendants.

No. 11-0564-DRH

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
I. Introduction
Now before the Court is defendant Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.’s
motion to dismiss (Doc. 19). Defendant argues that plaintiff does not have a cause
of action against it as it did not issue any policy to plaintiff under which he could
recover.

Plaintiff opposes the motion arguing that his cause of action against

defendant is based on agency. Based on the following, the Court denies the motion
to dismiss.
On May 25, 2011, plaintiff Robert Patton filed suit against Twin City Fire
Insurance Co., Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., GEICO General Insurance
Co., GEICO Indemnity Co., and GEICO Casualty Co. (“the GEICO defendants”) in the
Madison County, Illinois Circuit Court (Doc. 4-2). Patton’s complaint contains claims

Page 1 of 2

based on breach of contract: third party beneficiary; vexatious refusal; agency, breach
of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff’s complaint
seeks underinsured motorist benefits under several insurance policies issued by
defendants. On July 1, 2011, the GEICO defendants removed this case to this Court
based on diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 4).
II. Analysis
Defendant maintains that it did not issue any policy under which plaintiff is
seeking recovery and, thus, plaintiff does not have a cause of action against it.
Plaintiff responds that his complaint states a cause of action based on agency because
he alleges that Hartford engaged in the improper claims handling practices on behalf
of Twin City Fire Insurance Company while acting as principal to its agent and did
so with Twin City Fire Insurance Company’s express permission. The Court agrees
with plaintiff. Under Missouri law, which the parties agree applies, plaintiff has
stated a cause of action against Hartford based on agency. See Bach v. WinfieldFoley Fire Prot. Dist., 257 S.w.3d 605, 611 (Mo. 2008).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss (Doc. 19).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 5th day of August, 2011.

David R. Herndon
2011.08.05 06:40:25
-05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2