Travelers Insurance Company v. Gibbs, et al
Filing
28
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motions for More Definite Statement or in the Alternative, Motions to Strike, [Doc. No.s 5 and 10], are denied. 10 5 Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 3/21/12. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LORENZO GIBBS and DIONNE GATLING,)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 4:11CV599 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions for More Definite
Statement or in the Alternative, Motions to Strike, [Doc. No.’s 5 and 10]. Plaintiff
opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are denied.
Introduction
Plaintiff filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment by this Court that it
is not obligated under a policy of insurance issued to Defendants for losses
incurred as a result of a fire on the insured property which was the subject of the
insurance policy. Defendants have individually moved to strike certain paragraphs
or to require Plaintiff to make more definite and certain the specified paragraphs.
Defendants, however, urge that the allegations of the Complaint are “so broad and
vague as to be subject to dismissal.” Thus, the Court is perplexed as to the exact
relief sought by Defendants, i.e. however, the Court will address each of
Defendants’ stated concerns as perceived by the Court.
Facts and Background
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that the action arises out of a dispute involving
insurance coverage for a fire loss which occurred on August 25, 2010. Defendants
claimed they are entitled to insurance proceeds for the damage to their real and
personal property due to the fire. Plaintiff alleges that its claim investigation
revealed that Defendants had made material misrepresentations with regard to the
loss. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that it issued a policy of insurance to
Defendant Gibbs; that Defendants claimed that the dwelling and personal property
located at 5254 Maple Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63113 sustained damage as a
result of a fire; that Defendants submitted a sworn statement and proof of loss for
the damage to the building and personal property; that the policy excluded
intentional loss; that Plaintiff’s investigation revealed that Defendants, or someone
at their direction, started the fire; that the policy contained a condition that the
policy provided no coverage for any loss where the insured has intentionally
concealed or misrepresented any material fact, engaged in fraudulent conduct, or
made false statements.
-2-
Discussion
Standard of Review
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court
must take as true the alleged facts and determine whether they are sufficient to
raise more than a speculative right to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56 (2007). The Court does not, however, accept as true any allegation
that is a legal conclusion. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The
complaint must have “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
[plaintiff] is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)) and then Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957),
abrogated by Twombly, supra); see also Gregory v. Dillard’s Inc., 565 F.3d 464,
473 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 628 (2009). While detailed factual
allegations are not necessary, a complaint that contains “labels and conclusions,”
and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is not sufficient.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. The complaint must
set forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; C.N. v. Willmar Pub.
Sch., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 629-30 (8th Cir.2010); Zutz v.
-3-
Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010); Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588
F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). “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.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. If
the claims are only conceivable, not plausible, the complaint must be dismissed.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. In considering a
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “the complaint should be read as
a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in
isolation, is plausible.” Braden, 588 F.3d at 594. The issue in considering such a
motion is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff
is entitled to present evidence in support of the claim. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies this standard. Defendants claim that Plaintiff
fails to identify the actual evidence revealed during Plaintiff’s investigation; which
Defendant is responsible and how such Defendant is responsible for intentionally
starting the fire; how the fire was started or the identity of the specific person or
persons Defendants directed to start the fire. These facts, however, are not
required at this stage of the litigation. As Plaintiff correctly argues, Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure continues to require simply that the pleader sets
-4-
forth a short and plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief. While
the standard for dismissal has recently changed, the changes do not require
complete fact pleading in this Court.
Plaintiff has set forth its claim, the reasons therefore and the relief sought.
The claim is supported by factual allegations apprizing Defendants of the nature of
the rejection of Defendants’ insurance claims and the provisions of the policy
which give rise to the refusal. Defendants are, of course, entitled to discovery
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but Plaintiff is not required to set out
each and every specific factual detail in its Complaint. Plaintiff has stated more
than a mere recitation of the elements of its declaratory judgment action; it has
specifically stated all the essential requirements for Defendant to be notified of the
nature of Plaintiff’s action, the basis for its claim and the provisions of the policy
which support the rejection of Defendants’s insurance claim. There is nothing
vague or overly broad contained in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. The
policy provisions at issue are clearly identified.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment sufficiently satisfies Rules 8
and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, Defendants’
-5-
Motions for More Definite Statement or in the Alternative, Motions to Strike are
without merit.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for More Definite
Statement or in the Alternative, Motions to Strike, [Doc. No.’s 5 and 10], are
denied.
Dated this 21st day of March, 2012.
_________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
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?