Hart et al v. Safeco Insurance Co et al

Filing 53

ORDER AND OPINION The Court DENIES Safeco's 34 motion to dismiss. However, the Court finds that the entity issuing the insurance policy at issue in this coverage action is an indispensable party under Rule 19(a)(1) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiffs to join First National as a defendant in this action within twenty-one days of the date of this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2). Any previously asserted claims asserted against First National will relate back to the date of the original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B)-(C). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 12/19/2016.(sshe, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Juanita Hart and Devon Hart-Barron, ) Civil Action No. 2: 16-2777-RMG ) Plaintiffs, v. Safeco Insurance Co., a sUbsidiary of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company cUb/a First National Insurance Company of America, and American Auto Club Insurance Agency, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION ) ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on Defendant Safeco Insurance Company's ("Safeco") motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The amended complaint asserts six causes ofaction against Safeco: conversion, breach of contract, bad faith denial of insurance coverage, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. Safeco argues claims against it should be dismissed because it did not issue the insurance policy at issue in this case. Documents referenced in or integral to the complaint may be considered when considering a motion to dismiss. Phillips v. LCI Int 'I, Inc., 190 F.3d 609,618 (4th Cir. 1999). Here, documents referenced in the amended complaint show that the policy at issue in this case was issued by First National Insurance Company of America ("First National"). (See Am. Compl. Ex. A.) First National is one of Safeco's many underwriting companies. See Insurer Licensing http://www.safeco.comlunderwriting-companies. Information, Safeco Insurance, Further, by sworn affidavit, First National Insurance Company has admitted it is the entity issuing the policy at issue in this case. (Dkt. No. 39-1.) -1­ However. those documents also prominently feature "Safeco" on every declarations page, the policy tenns use phrases such as "Disclosure to Safeco Policy Holders," and the policy tenns define "Safeco" as "Safeco Insurance Company of America [and] First National Insurance Company of America." (See Dkt. No. 39-1 at 3-9.) The signature block for the adjuster assigned to the February 1,2016 accident reads: Richard Valenzuela First National Insurance Company of America (317) 660-3218 Fax: (888) 268-8840 Ricahrd. Valenzuela@safeco.com (Am. Compi. Ex. B (emphasis added).) The Court cannot detennine, solely from the documents referenced in or integral to the amended complaint, that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim against Safeco. Further, some of Plaintiffs' claims, such as negligent misrepresentation, are not necessarily coverage claims. The Court therefore DENIES Safeco's motion to dismiss. However, the Court finds that the entity issuing the insurance policy at issue in this coverage action is an indispensable party under Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court therefore ORDERS Plaintiffs to join First National as a defendant in this action within twentyone days of the date of this Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2). Any previously asserted claims asserted against First National will relate back to the date of the original complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B)-(C). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge December I ~ , 2016 Charleston, South Carolina -2­

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?