Meadowcrest Professional Building Partnership, L.L.C. v. Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Filing
8
ORDER & REASONS: denying 6 Companion Property & Casualty Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 10/29/14. (sek)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MEADOWCREST PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 14-2196
COMPANION PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
SECTION:
J(1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim (Rec. Doc. 6) filed by Defendant, Companion Property &
Casualty Insurance Company ("Defendant"), as well as an Opposition
(Rec. Doc. 7) by Plaintiff, Meadowcrest Professional Building
Partnership, LLC ("Plaintiff").
Having considered the motion, the
parties’ submissions, the record, and the applicable law, the Court
finds, for the reasons expressed below, that the motion should be
DENIED.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of the alleged breach of an insurance
contract. Defendant issued an original commercial property policy
to Plaintiff for the period of June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013, which
obligated Defendant to pay for all risk of direct physical loss to
"covered
property"
located
at
the
Meadowcrest
Professional
Partnership Building in Gretna, Louisiana. Plaintiff alleges that
during this policy period, a sewer system installed within the
1
building collapsed, resulting in extensive damage to the sewer
pipes and pipe hanger system throughout the building. Plaintiff
then alleges that Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiff for
this damage, in violation of the insurance contract. Plaintiff
filed suit against Defendant in the 24th Judicial District Court
for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana in August of 2014,
and the matter was subsequently removed to this Court on September
23, 2014. Plaintiff specifically requests this Court to find
Defendant liable for breach of the insurance contract as well as
breach of the duties of good faith and fair dealing imposed by
Louisiana law, and seeks damages and attorneys' fees associated
with these alleged breaches.
Defendant filed the instant motion on October 8, 2014, seeking
dismissal of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6)
on the basis that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
“Under
Rule
12(b)(6),
a
claim
may
be
dismissed
when
a
plaintiff fails to allege any set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief.” Taylor v. Books A Million,
Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing McConathy v. Dr.
Pepper/Seven Up Corp., 131 F.3d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 1998)). To
survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead
enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
2
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). A claim is
facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the
court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. A court must accept all
well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d
228, 232-33 (5th Cir. 2009); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th
Cir. 1996). The court is not, however, bound to accept as true
legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S.at
678.
DISCUSSION
In its complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached
its insurance contract by "arbitrarily and capriciously" refusing
to pay or making a written offer to settle claims regarding damage
to "covered property" which fell within the scope of the insurance
contract. (Rec. Doc. 1-1, p. 7). Defendant maintains that this
claim
is
insufficient
to
survive
a
12(b)(6)
motion
because
Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible
claim. Instead, Defendant alleges that in order for Plaintiff to
state a valid claim for breach of the insurance contract, it is
required to allege a breach of a specific policy provision. See
Louque v. Allstate Ins. Co., 314 F.3d 776, 782 (5th Cir. 2002); See
also Bergeron v. Pan Am. Assurance Co., 98-2421 (La. App. 4 Cir.
3
4/7/99); 731 So.2d 1037, 1045. Because Plaintiff has not pointed to
any specific policy language which Defendant has allegedly breached
or any provisions in the policy which would support Plaintiff's
assertion that the contract covered its claim, Defendant argues
that Plaintiff's claim is insufficiently specific and must be
dismissed.
In support of its argument, Defendant relies heavily on the
rulings in Louque and Bergeron. In Louque, the Fifth Circuit stated
that in order to state a claim for breach of an insurance contract,
a plaintiff must allege a breach of a specific policy provision.
Louque, 314 F.3d at 782. However, as this Court has previously
noted, because the Fifth Circuit's ruling on Louque was based
entirely on other reasoning,1 "any such statement regarding the
pleading requirements for breach of contract claims most certainly
is mere dicta." Stokes v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. 06-1053, 2007 WL
1875847, at *2 (E.D. La. June 28, 2007) (Barbier, J.).
As such,
the holding in Louque is narrowly limited to only the facts in that
case, and does not impose a broad rule of specificity for pleading
breach of insurance contract claims. See SMG Foods, LLC v. Delek
Capital, No. 09-6734, 2010 WL 103873, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 7, 2010)
(Barbier,
J.).
Additionally,
this
1
Court
has
noted
that
the
In Louque, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the defendant
insurance company was obligated pursuant to its insurance policy to settle a
third party claim. The Court ultimately decided the issue upon a finding that no
provision existed in the contract which would provide the plaintiffs with the
relief requested. Louque, 314 F.3d at 782.
4
Louisiana Fourth Circuit's ruling in Bergeron addressed the need to
refer to specific provisions when claiming breach of an insurance
policy only in the context of the parol evidence rule.2 Stokes,
2007 WL 1875847, at *2. As such, this ruling does not stand for
Defendant's broad assertion that Plaintiff must allege a breach of
a specific policy provision in order to state a claim for breach of
an insurance contract. Id.
Instead, this Court has repeatedly held that "there does not
appear to be any requirement in Louisiana law that would require
plaintiffs to plead with particularity which specific provision of
the contract was breached." SMG Foods, 2010 WL 103873, at *2
(citing Stokes, 2007 WL 1875847, at *3). Rather, plaintiffs "simply
need to plead that there was a contract that was breached." Stokes,
2007 WL 1875847, at *3. Here, Plaintiff has done just that.
Plaintiff specifically contends in its complaint that the insurance
policy granted by Defendant covered the damage to its property, and
that by failing to pay, Defendant breached its obligations pursuant
to
the
contract.
Despite
not
referencing
specific
coverage
provisions in the contract, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
presented a plausible claim, for which dismissal at this stage in
the litigation is improper.
2
Bergeron specifically concerned issues arising out of a written insurance
contract which had undergone oral amendments. Bergeron, 731 So.2d at 1043-45. As
such, the Court's finding that the plaintiff failed to state a valid claim for
breach of insurance contract because he failed to point to any written provision
which had been allegedly breached, applies only within the context of the parol
evidence rule. Stokes, 2007 WL 1875847, at *2.
5
Moreover, despite seeking dismissal of all Plaintiff's claims,
Defendant's motion only discusses the alleged flaws in Plaintiff's
claim
for
breach
of
the
insurance
contract.
It
does
not
specifically contest Plaintiff's claims for bad faith pursuant to
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:1892. As such, the Court finds that
dismissal of Plaintiff's claim for bad faith is not warranted.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim (Rec. Doc. 6) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 29th day of October, 2014.
________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
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?