Albe et al v. Scottsdale Insurance Company
Filing
11
ORDER & REASONS that Scottsdale Insurance Company's 5 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART, with respect to both of Mrs. Albe's claims and with respect to the Albes' structural damage claim, and DENIED IN PART, with respect to sufficiency of process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Albes be given leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) on or before May 15, 2014. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 4/11/14. (dno)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH G. ALBE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-6654
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY
SECTION "L" (4)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company's motion to dismiss. (Rec.
Doc. 5). Having considered the parties' memoranda and the applicable law, the Court now issues
this order.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of property damage caused by Hurricane Isaac and construction
activity. Scottsdale issued a commercial property and general liability insurance policy to
Plaintiff Joseph Albe for 2331 Canal Street in New Orleans. The policy period lasted from
February 28, 2012, through February 28, 2013. Mr. Albe submitted a claim to Scottsdale on
September 3, 2012, after his property allegedly sustained roof and window damage as a result of
Hurricane Isaac on August 29, 2012. Following an investigation, Scottsdale denied the claim
because the covered damage did not exceed the policy's deductible. Several months later, on
December 20, 2012, Mr. Albe submitted a second claim to Scottsdale for damage allegedly
resulting from the vibrations caused by construction activity across the street. Following another
investigation, Scottsdale also denied that claim because of the policy's exclusions.
On August 8, 2013, Mr. Albe—and his wife, Plaintiff Michelle Albe—filed a petition in
state court. In response, Scottsdale filed no-right-of-action and no-cause-of-action preemptory
exceptions and improper-cumulation-of-actions and nonconformity-of-the-petition dilatory
exceptions. On November 15, 2013, the Albes provided a copy of an amended complaint, which
increased the value of each of the disputed claims and added an allegation of bad faith.
Scottsdale removed the action to this Court, even though the amended petition "has not been
served on Scottsdale (because the sheriff is holding service pending payment by [Mr. Albe])."
(Rec. Doc. 5-1 at 5).
II.
PRESENT MOTION
Scottsdale now moves to dismiss because there was insufficient service of process and
because the Albes have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Rec. Doc. 5).
With regard to service of process, it argues that the Albes have failed to effectuate service of
process for the amended petition in the manner required by law. With regard to the Albes'
alleged failure to state a claim, Scottsdale alleges that Mrs. Albe is not a party to the insurance
policy and that the structural damage claim incorrectly alleges that it was the entity that
performed the construction activity.
The Albes respond. (Rec. Doc. 7). With regard to insufficiency of process, they argue
that service of citation was not required for the amended petition (they also note that Scottsdale
acknowledged receiving the amended complaint). With regard to their alleged failure to state a
claim, they argue that, as a co-owner of the property, Mrs. Albe's claims are valid because she is
a third party beneficiary. They also argue that their claim for structural damage should not be
dismissed because their allegation that Scottsdale had performed the construction activity that
damaged the property was a typographical error.
Scottsdale replies. (Rec. Doc. 10). Specifically, it notes that it was forced to request a
copy of the amended petition after it had filed its exceptions to the original petition. With regard
to Mrs. Albe's standing, Scottsdale states that her co-ownership of the property has not been
alleged and thus her claims against it must be dismissed. It also argues that even if the Albes'
2
claim regarding construction damage was made deficient by a typographical error, it must also
be dismissed.
III.
LAW & ANALYSIS
A.
Insufficient Service of Process
First, it is necessary to determine whether sufficient service of process existed prior to
removal. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court is authorized to dismiss a
civil action for insufficiency of service of process. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(5); see also Kreimerman
v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C. V., 22 F.3d 634, 645 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016
(1994). Absent proper service of process, a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a party named
as a defendant. Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999).
This action originated in Louisiana state court, therefore it is necessary to determine whether
there was proper service of process pursuant to state law.
Under Louisiana law, "[s]ervice of the citation shall be requested on all named
defendants within ninety days of commencement of the action." LA. CODE CIV. P. art. 1201.
There does not appear to be any dispute that sufficient service of citation existed with regard to
the original petition. Ordinarily, the same requirements apply "[w]hen a supplemental or
amended petition is filed naming any additional defendant." Id. (emphasis added). However,
because the amended petition at issue here did not name any additional defendants, additional
service of citation was unnecessary.
Accordingly, a different set of service of process requirements apply to "every pleading
subsequent to the original petition." LA. CODE CIV. P. art. 1312. A subsequent pleading may be
served by "[t]ransmitting a copy by electronic means to counsel of record, or if there is no
counsel of record, to the adverse party, at the number or addresses expressly designated in a
pleading or other writing for receipt of electronic service." LA. CODE CIV. P. art. 1313. "Service
3
by electronic means is complete upon transmission but is not effective and shall not be certified
if the serving party learns the transmission did not reach the party to be served." Id. By faxing
the amended petition in the manner required, service of process properly existed with regard to
the amended petition. Therefore, service or process existed with regard to both the original and
amended petitions.
B.
Failure to State a Claim
Second, it is necessary to determine whether Mrs. Albe's claims must be dismissed
because she was not a third party beneficiary to the insurance policy and whether the Albes'
claim for structural damage must be dismissed because Scottsdale is not the liable party. In
considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court accepts
all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In re
Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). However, a pleading that
offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, "the tenet that a court must accept
as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.
"[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. at
679.
With regard to Mrs. Albe's claims, the parties do not dispute that she is not a named
insured under the policy. Under Louisiana law, "[a]n insurance policy is a contract and, as with
all other contracts, it constitutes the law between the parties." Pareti v. Sentry Indem. Co., 536
So. 2d 417, 420 (La. 1988). If plaintiffs are not parties to the insurance policy, "they can only
avail themselves of the benefit of [it] if they are third party beneficiaries." Joseph v. Hosp. Serv.
Dist. No. 2 of Parish of St. Mary, 939 So. 2d 1206, 1211 (La. 2006). Ordinarily, "[a] contracting
party may stipulate a benefit for a third person called a third party beneficiary." LA. CIV. CODE
4
art. 1978. "[S]uch a contract for the benefit of a third party is commonly referred to as a
'stipulation pour autrui.'" Joseph, 939 So. 2d at 1211. In determining whether such a stipulation
exists, three requirements must be met. First, "[t]he most basic requirement of a stipulation pour
autrui is that the contract manifest a clear intention to benefit the third party; absent such a clear
manifestation, a party claiming to be a third party beneficiary cannot meet his burden of proof."
Id. at 1212. This clear manifestation is "never presumed." Id. Further, "if the contract must be in
writing, then the stipulation pour autrui must also be in writing." Id. at 1215 n.13 (quotation
omitted). Second, "there must be certainty as to the benefit to accrue to the beneficiary." Id. at
1212 (quotation omitted). Third, the benefit must not be merely incidental. Id. The parties do not
appear to dispute the fact that Mrs. Albe is not a party to the insurance policy, therefore she may
only avail herself of it as a third party beneficiary. In their memorandum, the Albes suggest that
Mrs. Albe is a third party beneficiary because she is the co-owner of the property at issue.
However, neither their original nor amended petitions include or provide a basis for such an
allegation. Therefore, Mrs. Albe's claims against Scottsdale must be dismissed. With regard to
the Albes' structural damage claim, which alleges that damage was caused by Scottsdale's
construction activity, it is undisputed that this was a typographical error. It too must be
dismissed. However, considering the mandate of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), which
provides that a "court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires," the Court
finds that such leave is appropriate in this instance.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Scottsdale's motion to dismiss is GRANTED
IN PART, with respect to both of Mrs. Albe's claims and with respect to the Albes' structural
damage claim, and DENIED IN PART, with respect to sufficiency of process. IT IS
5
FURTHER ORDERED that the Albes be given leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to
Rule 15(a)(2) on or before May 15, 2014.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of April, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?