Becnel v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 13

ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Defendant USAA CIC's 9 unopposed motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff Shameka Becnel's claims against Defendant USAA CIC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Brandon S. Long on 09/25/2024. (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHAMEKA BECNEL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 23-6889

USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY

SECTION “O”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion1 of
Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA CIC”) to dismiss the breachof-insurance-contract claims and the statutory bad-faith claims brought by Plaintiff
Shameka Becnel. USAA CIC contends that Becnel fails to state a claim because the
insurance policy referenced in her petition and central to her claims confirms that
USAA CIC is not Becnel’s insurer. USAA CIC’s motion to dismiss was noticed for
submission on February 7, 2024; 2 Becnel’s response was thus due on January 30,
2024. See L OC A L C IV IL R UL E 7.5. Seven months have passed, and Becnel has failed
to file a response. The Court therefore considers the motion to dismiss unopposed.
This dispute arises from Becnel’s claim that USAA CIC failed to timely and
adequately pay her the proceeds due under her insurance policy for damage her New
Orleans property suffered during Hurricane Ida. 3 Becnel sued USAA CIC in state
court, alleging that USAA CIC (1) breached the insurance policy 4 and (2) violated

ECF No. 9.
ECF No. 9-3.
3 See generally ECF No. 1-1.
4 Id. at ¶¶ 36–38.
1
2

statutory duties outlined in Sections 22:1892 and 22:1973 of the Louisiana Revised
Statutes. 5
USAA CIC removed this case based on diversity jurisdiction. 6 See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). USAA CIC now moves to dismiss Becnel’s claims, arguing that she fails
to state claims against it because her policy was issued by another entity, USAA
General Indemnity Company (“USAA GIC”), and not USAA CIC. 7
“To 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, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In its Rule
12(b)(6) review, the Court “accept[s] all well-pleaded facts as true and construe[s] the
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Lewis v. Danos, 83 F.4th 948,
953 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. 2020)).
The Court also “may consider ‘any documents attached to the motion to dismiss
that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.’” PHI Grp., Inc. v.
Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 58 F.4th 838, 841 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Lone Star Fund V
(U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)). Here, the Court
considers the insurance policy that provided coverage for Becnel’s property because

Id. at ¶¶ 39–40. Becnel argues that she is entitled to damages, attorney’s fees, penalties, and
costs under Sections 22:1892 and 22:1973 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes. Id.
6 ECF No. 1.
7 ECF No. 9.
5

2

it is attached to USAA CIC’s motion, 8 central to Becnel’s claims, and referenced in
Becnel’s petition. 9 See, e.g., id. (considering insurance policy attached to Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss).
The policy itself confirms that Becnel fails to state any plausible claims against
USAA CIC. That is because the policy verifies that USAA CIC did not issue it: the
homeowners policy special form states “[t]his policy is issued by USAA General
Indemnity Company (“USAA GIC”).” 10 It also notes that “[t]his policy is a legal
contract between you, the policyholder, and us, the insurer.” 11 The policy further
specifies that “you” refers to the “named insured” identified on the policy’s
Declarations page, and “us” refers to the “Company providing this insurance.” 12 And
the first of two Renewal Declarations pages identifies “Shamakia Becnel” as the
“named insured” with USAA GIC listed on the header for both pages. 13 When
Hurricane Ida made landfall, Becnel’s property was covered by a homeowners
insurance policy issued by USAA GIC. Therefore, USAA CIC is not Becnel’s insurer
with respect to the Hurricane Ida property-damage claim that gives rise to Becnel’s
claims.
The fact that Becnel’s policy was issued by USAA GIC—and not USAA CIC—
is fatal to her claims against USAA CIC. Becnel’s claims require a contractual or

ECF No. 9-2.
ECF No. 1-1.
10 ECF No. 9-2 at 15 (emphasis added).
11 Id. (emphasis added).
12 Id. at 16.
13 Id. at 10–11. The first of the two Renewal Declarations pages identifies the named insured
as “Shamakia Becnel.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff’s name is spelled “Shameka Becnel” in both the state court
complaint and the petition in this Court. ECF No. 1-1.
8
9

3

insurer–insured relationship between her and USAA CIC with respect to coverage
under her policy for the Hurricane Ida damage to her property. 14 Because the policy
discussed in Becnel’s petition and central to her claims confirms that there is no such
relationship between her and USAA CIC, Becnel fails to state plausible claims
against USAA CIC.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant USAA CIC’s unopposed motion 15 to
dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff Shameka Becnel’s claims against Defendant USAA
CIC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of September, 2024.

BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Becnel’s breach-of-contract claim “requires . . . a contractual relationship” with USAA CIC.
Regions Ins., Inc. v. All. CAB Serv., LLC, 2019-0714, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/4/20); 293 So. 3d 1218, 1222
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Becnel’s bad-faith claims similarly require an
insurance contract with USAA CIC, see LA. STAT. ANN. § 22:1892(A)(1) (imposing duties on “insurers
issuing any type of contract” under which “any claim [is] due any insured”), or an insurer–insured
relationship with USAA CIC, see LA. STAT. ANN. § 22:1973(A).
15 ECF No. 9.
14

4