Miller et al v. St Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company et al

Filing 13

ORDER granting 5 defendant Nabor's motion to dismiss...the claims against it are dismissed. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 04/24/2015. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JANET MILLER, individually, and as next )
of kin of GEORGE MILLER, deceased,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE
)
INSURANCE COMPANY, et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

NO. CIV-15-0165-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this case in state court, asserting claims arising out of the death of her
husband, George Miller, who was struck and killed by an automobile while assisting a
stranded motorist during a blizzard on December 24, 2009. Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint [Doc. #1-13] added Nabors Completion & Production Services Company
(“Nabors”) as a defendant. Some time after the accident, Nabors acquired Superior Well
Services, Ltd. (“Superior), which was Mr. Miller’s employer at the time of the accident and
the owner of the vehicle he was driving. It appears to be undisputed that Nabors is the
successor in interest to Superior. After being added as a defendant, Nabors removed the case
to this court. It has now filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it.
When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court accepts
all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and views them in the light most
favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party. S.E.C. v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633, 640 (10th Cir.
2014). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief
1

that is plausible on its face" and "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Applying this standard, the court
concludes that defendant’s motion should be granted.
Plaintiff indicates she is seeking only to recover uninsured motorist benefits from the
insurance policy that covered the vehicle driven by her husband prior to the accident—a
contract claim---and that she views Nabors as somehow responsible for paying those benefits
if the insurance company will not. Plaintiff cites no law to support that remarkable
proposition and nothing in the complaint even suggests a plausible basis for claim against the
employer in these circumstances. She argues there was an agreement, express or implied,
by the employer to provide insurance on the vehicle that would have covered these
circumstances. But the complaint alleges no facts which would support the existence of such
an agreement. Further, the complaint explicitly alleges that there was insurance on the
vehicle.1 So there is no basis alleged for inferring that Nabors breached any agreement to
insure that it had, even if such an agreement be assumed. In short, there is nothing in the

1

The amended complaint alleges that Nabors “had a role in ... insuring the vehicle driven
by decedent...” and includes other allegations indicating a policy was obtained. See Doc. #1-13,
paras. 8, 12 and 15-17.

2

complaint which suggests a basis for claim against Nabors in these circumstances.2
Defendant Nabor’s motion to dismiss [Doc. #5] is GRANTED. The claims against
it are dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2015.

2

It is therefore unnecessary to address any issue that may exist as to the potential
applicability of a statute of limitations.

3