WEST et al v. CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY

Filing 33

ORDER granting 24 Motion to Sever. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 5/17/2012. (rtt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN N. WEST and PETER SHLOSKY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 11-1259
Judge Cathy Bissoon

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant CUNA Mutual Insurance Society’s Motion to
Sever the claims of Plaintiffs West and Shlosky (Doc. 24). For the reasons stated herein, the
Court will grant Defendant’s motion.
Defendant asserts that the claims of Plaintiffs West and Shlosky should be severed
because Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 for
permissive joinder. Plaintiffs may join in one action if “(A) they assert any right to relief jointly,
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all
plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).
Plaintiffs bring claims for recovery of benefits under long term disability insurance
contracts and corresponding claims for bad faith. Plaintiffs assert their claims satisfy the “same
transaction” requirement of Rule 20 because their claims involve “the very same credit disability
insurance policy, the very same definition of disability within that policy, and the very same,
uniform, reason for the termination of benefits.” Pls.’ Br. 7 (Doc. 32). Plaintiffs had separate

1

insurance contracts,1 separately received benefits at different times, separately were denied
benefits at different times, and have separate, independent claims for damages. See Compl.
¶¶ 22, 23 (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs’ claims, arising out of separate denial of benefits under separate
insurance policies, do not “assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with
respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1). Because Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims cannot exist without
their underlying claims for benefits under their insurance policies, Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims
likewise do not satisfy Rule 20’s requirements. Plaintiffs, therefore, may not join in one action
against Defendant.
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant CUNA Mutual
Insurance Society’s Motion to Sever the claims of Plaintiffs West and Shlosky (Doc. 24) is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
May 17, 2012
cc (via e-mail):
All counsel of record.

1

Plaintiffs’ reference to “the very same credit disability insurance policy” apparently means
Plaintiff West and Plaintiff Shlosky’s insurance policies with Defendant used the same
language, not that Plaintiff West and Plaintiff Shlosky were parties to the same insurance
contract with Defendant. Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiffs
purchased their policies at different times. See Pls.’ Br. 6-7 (Doc. 32).
2