Maso et al v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to file a first amended complaint [Doc. # 14 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 3/24/15. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH A. MASO and JEANNIE MASO,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14-CV-1885-CEJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint.

Defendant has responded in opposition, and the issues are

fully briefed.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Joseph Maso was riding a motorcycle in St. Charles County, Missouri
on July 24, 2014 when he crashed into a car driven by Supaporn Buske. Maso was
injured in the crash and he claimed losses in excess of $600,000. At the time of
the accident, the motorcycle was covered by a policy of insurance issued by
defendant Farmers Insurance Company. Buske’s insurer tendered its policy limit of
$50,000, which plaintiffs accepted.

Plaintiffs then filed a claim with defendant

under the underinsured motorist coverage provision in the motorcycle policy.
Defendant tendered the motorcycle policy’s limit of $100,000, which the plaintiffs
accepted.
The plaintiffs owned two automobiles that were also insured by defendant.
In this action, the plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to recover under the
automobile

policies’

underinsured

motorist

provisions.

Defendant

filed

a

counterclaim seeking a declaration that its payment of the claim under the
motorcycle policy satisfies its obligation to plaintiffs.
The deadline for filing an amended pleading without leave of court was
February 2, 2015.
amended complaint.

On February 27, 2015, plaintiffs moved for leave to file an
Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment adds a claim based on the

uninsured motorist coverage provisions of the automobile policies.

Defendant

opposes the motion, asserting that the amendment is futile.
II.

Discussion

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts should grant leave
to amend pleadings freely “when justice so requires.” A court may properly deny a
party’s motion to amend its complaint, however, when there is “undue delay, bad
faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment.” Popoalii v.
Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008). If a proposed amendment
could not withstand a motion to dismiss or otherwise fails to state a claim, then the
court is justified in denying the amendment for futility. E.g., Trademark Med., LLC
v. Birchwood Labs., Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1002 (E.D. Mo. 2014).

In turn, a

motion to dismiss may only be granted if, taking all the facts alleged in the
complaint as true and construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, it appears that the complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Schriener v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
663 (2009)).

2

In the proposed amendment, plaintiffs allege that Buske was insured at the
time of the accident with liability coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per
occurrence. In Missouri, an uninsured motorist is defined as an operator of a motor
vehicle (a) who is not covered by a liability insurance policy, (b) who is covered by
a liability insurance policy that does not provide coverage of at least the state
minimum of $25,000, (c) whose identity cannot be ascertained (i.e., in a hit-andrun), or (d) whose insurer is insolvent and unable to pay. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 379.203
(citing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 303.030); see Geneser v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
787 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989) (clarifying Cook v. Pedigo, 714 S.W.2d
949, 952 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)).

Because plaintiffs the proposed amendment

unambiguously states that Buske was insured above the statutory minimum, he
was not an uninsured motorist under Missouri law. Thus, the uninsured motorist
provisions of plaintiffs’ policies with defendant are not a basis for recovery, and an
amendment to the complaint to add that claim would be futile.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint [Doc. #14] is denied.

____________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 24th day of March, 2015.

3