Kruse et al v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company
Filing
14
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 10/6/2015, Status Report due by 10/8/2015); granting 8 Motion to Dismiss (Re: 11 Order, Directing Parties to File Joint Status Report, 2 Complaint ) (RGG, Chambers)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARK KRUSE,
DONETTA KRUSE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, A Foreign For
Profit Insurance Corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15-CV-0444-CVE-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before this Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ bad faith and punitive
damages claims (Dkt. # 8). Defendant asks the Court to dismiss these counts because plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. Plaintiffs respond that they have alleged
sufficient facts to state a claim, and ask the Court to deny defendant’s motion, or, in the alternative,
grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Dkt. # 13.
Plaintiffs filed this action in the Northern District of Oklahoma asserting claims of breach
of contract, bad faith, and punitive damages. Dkt. # 2. Plaintiffs are holders of a homeowners’
insurance policy issued by defendant. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs allege that their property suffered water
damage due to a plumbing leak, after which they made a claim to defendant. Id. Plaintiffs allege
that defendant was unreasonable in its investigation, evaluation, and payment of plaintiffs’ claim.
Id. at 3.
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s bad faith and punitive damages claims should be dismissed
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. First, defendant asserts that plaintiffs have
failed to provide sufficient factual support, consistent with Twombly and Iqbal, to satisfy Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Second, plaintiff asserts that, under Oklahoma law, which governs this diversity
action, it is a long-standing rule that punitive damages are not a separate cause of action.
In considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court must determine
whether the claimant has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. A motion to dismiss is
properly granted when a complaint provides no “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). A complaint must contain enough “facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” and the factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. (citations omitted). “Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by
showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 562. Although
decided within an antitrust context, Twombly “expounded the pleading standard for all civil actions”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 683 (2009). For the purpose of making the dismissal determination,
a court must accept all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true, even if doubtful in fact,
and must construe the allegations in the light most favorable to a claimant. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555; Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007); Moffett v. Halliburton
Energy Servs., Inc., 291 F.3d 1227, 1231 (10th Cir. 2002). However, a court need not accept as true
those allegations that are conclusory in nature. Erikson v. Pawnee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 263
F.3d 1151, 1154-55 (10th Cir. 2001). “[C]onclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1109-10 (10th Cir. 1991).
2
Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ bad faith claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs’
allegations are merely a recitation of the elements of the cause of action. A claim of bad faith under
Oklahoma law requires a plaintiff to show: “(1) claimant was entitled to coverage under the
insurance policy at issue; (2) the insurer had no reasonable basis for delaying payment; (3) the
insurer did not deal fairly and in good faith with the claimant; and (4) the insurer’s violation of its
duty of good faith and fair dealing was the direct cause of the claimant’s injury.” Ball v. Wilshire
Ins. Co., 221 P.3d 717, 724 (Okla. 2009). In support of their bad faith claim, plaintiffs assert that
defendant’s conduct includes a failure to pay for covered damages, a failure to adequately and timely
investigate plaintiffs’ claim, delay of payment, and failure to cooperate and deal fairly. Dkt. # 2, at
4. Plaintiffs fail, however, to provide any factual basis that would support these assertions.
Plaintiffs’ general allegations are no more than “conclusory allegations without supporting factual
averments” and do not state a plausible claim of bad faith. This claim should thus be dismissed.
However, plaintiffs will be permitted to file an amended complaint realleging this claim if they
believe that they can state facts sufficient to support a claim of bad faith.
Defendant also argues that plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim should be dismissed because
punitive damages are not an independent cause of action under Oklahoma law. Plaintiffs’ state law
claim for punitive damages is not an independent cause of action, but depends upon the existence
of a separate claim. Smith v. Warehouse Market, Inc., 586 P.2d 724, 726 (Okla. 1978) (“[I]n this
state a claim for punitive damages cannot be a separate and independent cause of action, but is only
incidental or collateral to the claim for actual damages . . . .”). Plaintiffs’ separate claim for punitive
damages should thus be dismissed.
3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 8) is granted.
Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint re-alleging their bad faith claim no later than October 6,
2015.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ deadline for filing joint status report is
extended to October 8, 2015.
DATED this 22nd day of September, 2015.
4
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?