Johnson et al v. Allied Trust Insurance Company et al

Filing 14

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant American Bankers 7 motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant American Bankers are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Brandon S. Long on 09/25/2024. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JARED JOHNSON, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 23-6389

ALLIED TRUST INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL.

SECTION “O”
ORDER

Before the Court is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion 1 by
Defendant American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (“American Bankers”)
to dismiss the breach-of-insurance-contract claims and the statutory bad-faith claims
by Plaintiffs Jason and Trina Johnson. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from damages their
property allegedly sustained during Hurricane Ida. 2 American Bankers is a WriteYour-Own (“WYO”) Program carrier participating in the National Flood Insurance
Program (“NFIP”), pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (“NFIA”). 3
American Bankers issued a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”), bearing policy
number 1961526515 (the “Policy”), to Plaintiffs for their property located at 45 Derek
Lane in LaPlace, Louisiana. 4 After Hurricane Ida, Plaintiffs filed a claim with
American Bankers. 5 On February 9, 2022, American Bankers issued a written partial
denial of Plaintiffs’ claim. 6 Over a year later, on August 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this
lawsuit against American Bankers in the 40th Judicial District Court of St. John the

ECF No. 7.
ECF No. 1.
3 ECF No. 1 at 1, 3 ¶¶ 6–10.
4 ECF No. 1-2 at 4 ¶ 6.
5 Id. ¶ 12.
6 ECF No. 7-1 at 9.
1
2

Baptist Parish. 7 American Bankers subsequently removed this case to this Court on
October 19, 2023. 8
American Bankers argues that Plaintiffs’ claims should now be dismissed
because (1) Plaintiffs’ breach of breach-of-insurance-contract claim is time-barred and
(2) Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims are barred by federal statutory, regulatory, and
common law. 9 American Bankers’ motion to dismiss was noticed for submission on
January 10, 2024; 10 Plaintiffs’ response was thus due on January 2, 2024. See L OC A L
C I V IL R UL E 7.5.
During a status conference with Magistrate Judge Currault, Plaintiffs
indicated that they did not file any opposition to American Bankers’ motion because
they found the motion to be well-founded. 11 The Court thus instructed Plaintiffs to
file a short response indicting their agreement with American Bankers’ motion. 12
Plaintiffs subsequently filed their response, reiterating that they did not file any
opposition to American Bankers’ motion because it was “well-founded.” 13 Plaintiffs
also stated that they are “in agreement with the dismissal of American Bankers
Insurance Company of Florida from this matter.” 14
ECF No. 1-2 at 3. NFIA provides that a claimant on a policy issued under the Act may
“institute an action” to dispute a disallowance of a claim only “within one year after the date of mailing
of notice of disallowance or partial disallowance by the” WYO insurer. 42 U.S.C. § 4072. See Bateman
v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., No. CV 23-6338, 2024 WL 894790, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 1, 2024)
(granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and finding Plaintiff’s claims were both time-barred under
the NFIA and preempted by federal law).
8 ECF No. 1.
9 American Bankers also asserts that Plaintiffs’ claim for interest is barred by the no-interest
rule in Newton v. Capital Assur. Co., 245 F.3d 1306, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001). ECF No. 7-1 at 12.
10 ECF No. 7-6.
11 ECF No. 12.
12 Id.
13 ECF No. 13.
14 Id.
7

2

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant American Bankers motion 15 to dismiss is
GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ claims against

Defendant

American Bankers are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of September, 2024.

BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

ECF No. 7.

3