Advanced Sleep Center, Inc. et al v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London
Filing
13
ORDER AND REASONS granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. IT IS ORDERED that Underwriters' Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress be and hereby is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ADVANCED SLEEP CENTER,
INC., et al.
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 14-592
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD'S, LONDON
Defendant
SECTION āEā
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claim for Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress, filed by defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
("Underwriters").1 Plaintiffs, Advanced Sleep Center, Inc. and Neurodiagnostic Center, Inc.
("Plaintiffs"), oppose Underwriters' motion.2 Underwriters filed a reply in support of its
motion.3 For the reasons that follow, Underwriters' motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This suit arises out of an insurance claim made by Plaintiffs for damage to their
property sustained during Hurricane Isaac. Plaintiffs brought suit against their insurer,
Underwriters, for failing to tender sufficient payment under a commercial property
insurance policy for Plaintiffs' losses.4 Plaintiffs' claims include, inter alia, breach of
contract, bad faith claims adjusting, negligent claims adjusting, and intentional infliction
1
R. Doc. 5.
2
R. Doc. 6.
3
R. Doc. 10.
4
Plaintiffs also claim Underwriters' refused to participate in the appraisal process in violation of
the policy's contractual terms, and request the Court appoint an umpire and compel Underwriters to
submit to the appraisal process.
1
of emotional distress (IIED).
Underwriters moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim for IIED.
Underwriters argues Plaintiffs, as corporations, are juridical persons and thus incapable of
bringing a claim for IIED. Alternatively, Underwriters asserts the allegations in Plaintiffs'
complaint are insufficient to state a cause of action for IIED.
STANDARD OF LAW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court may dismiss a
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if the plaintiff has
not set forth factual allegations in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401
(5th Cir. 2007). As the Fifth Circuit explained in Gonzales v. Kay:
"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). The Supreme Court recently
expounded upon the Twombly standard, explaining that "[t]o survive
a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 128 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct.
1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929). "A Claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Id. It follows that "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit
the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - that the pleader is
entitled to relief." Id. at 1950 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009).
The Court cannot look beyond the factual allegations in the pleadings to determine
whether relief should be granted. See Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir.
1999); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996). In assessing Plaintiffs' complaint,
2
the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and liberally construe all factual
allegations in the light most favorable to Smith. Spivey, 197 F.3d at 774; Lowrey v. Tex A
& M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997). "Dismissal is appropriate when the
complaint 'on its face show[s] a bar to relief." Cutrer v. McMillan, 308 F. App'x 819, 820
(5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (unpublished) (quoting Clark v. Amoco Prod. Co., 794 F.2d
967, 970 (5th Cir. 1986)).
ANALYSIS
In order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must
prove, "(1) that the conduct of the defendant was extreme and outrageous; (2) that the
emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3) that the defendant desired
to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that severe emotional distress would be certain
or substantially certain to result from his conduct." White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So. 2d
1205, 1209 (La. 1991).
The Court finds that corporations such as Plaintiffs cannot suffer emotional distress
as a matter of law. See e.g. Walle Corp v. Rockwell Graphics Systems, Inc., 1992 WL
245963 at *5 (E.D. La. Sept. 21, 1992). Louisiana federal courts have consistently held that
a juridical entity such as a corporation can suffer only economic damage.5 Id. ("As an entity
designed to produce profits, the only type of loss a corporation can suffer is economic").
Thus, "a corporation ... cannot suffer non-pecuniary damages in the form of, inter alia,
negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, loss of enjoyment, inconvenience
and, in general, mental and emotional damages." Kelly v. Porter, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 632,
5
Under Louisiana law, a corporation is a "juridical person." La. Civ. Code art. 24.
3
638 (E.D. La. 2010). Underwriters cannot be held liable for intentionally inflicting
emotional distress on Plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Underwriters' Motion for Partial Dismissal of
Plaintiffs' Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress be and hereby is
GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of June, 2014.
___
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?