Farhat v. Texas Farmers Insurance Company

Filing 24

Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court ORDERS that defendant's motion 22 for judgment on the pleadings be, and is hereby, granted, and that plaintiff's claims for relief other than for breach of contract be, and are hereby, dismissed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 6/8/2017) (edm)

U .. '"'TP.V'T L ' l 'T S <0 ~\_i.\,_,.1_ "0' \1
N
'ORTifERN DISTRICT
TEXAS

OF

L}

i

DISTRI~

IN THE UNITED STATES
COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TErAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MIKE FARHAT,

2017

CLL

§

~OURT

f):=----

By _ _ _

§

Plaintiff,

JUN _ B

Dcputy

§
§

vs.

§

NO. 4:16-CV-1175-A

§

TEXAS FARMERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,

§
§
§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Texas
Farmers Insurance Company, for judgment on the pleadings on
plaintiff's extra-contractual claims. Plaintiff, Mike Farhat, has
failed to respond to the motion, which is ripe for ruling,
apparently conceding that defendant is entitled to judgment as
requested.
I.

Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff commenced this action by the filing of a petition
in the 342nd Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.
Defendant filed a notice of removal, bringing the action before
this court. On February 10, 2017, plaintiff filed his amended
petition.
Plaintiff seeks to recover under a flood insurance policy
issued through defendant under the government's National Flood
Insurance Program. Defendant denied coverage. Plaintiff appealed

,I

the denial of his claim and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency denied his appeal, stating that there was no evidence of a
"general and temporary condition of flooding" that would trigger
coverage under the policy. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for
declaratory judgment, breach of contract, Texas Insurance Code
violations, unfair claims settlement practices, breach of duty of
good faith and fair dealing,

failure to comply with the Texas

prompt payment statute. He also seeks to recover attorney's fees
and interest.
II.

Grounds of the Motion
Defendant says that all of plaintiff's extra-contractual
claims are barred and preempted by federal law. It further says
that the court should decline to exercise declaratory judgment
since the relief sought is subsumed in plaintiff's breach of
contract claim.
III.

Applicable Legal Principles
Rule 12(c} of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a
party to move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings
are closed but early enough not to delay trial. A motion for
judgment on the pleadings "is designed to dispose of cases where
the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the

2

merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the
pleadings and any j udiciall.y noticed facts." Hebert Abstract Co.
v. Touchstone Props., Ltd.,

914 F.2d 74, 76 (5th Cir. 1990). Such

a motion is reviewed under the same standard as a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6)

for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, that is, whether the
complaint provides enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face. Jebaco,
587 F.3d 314, 318
413, 418

Inc. v. Harrah's Operating Co.,

(5th Cir. 2009); Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d

(5th Cir. 2008).
IV.
Analysis

As defendant recites in its rather thorough brief, the law
is clear that in the context of the national flood insurance
program extra-contractual claims (including claims for attorney's
fees)

are barred and preempted. See Heckler v. Community Health

Servs. of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (1984); Federal Crop
Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380

(1947); Grissom v. Liberty

Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 678 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 2012); Wright v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 415 F.3d 384, 390

(5th Cir. 2005). Further,

the national flood insurance program does not authorize interest,
before or after judgment. Monistere v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co., 559F.3d390, 398

(5thCir. 2009).

3

Where a party seeks declaratory relief and a substantially
similar alternative remedy, the court may exercise its discretion
to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim. Torch,
LeBlanc,

947 F.2d 193, 194

Inc. v.

(5th cir. 1991). Here, any issue

regarding contract interpretation will be resolved as part of the
breach of contract claim. Accordingly, the court declines to
entertain the declaratory judgment claim. Wilton v. Seven Falls
Co., 515 U.S. 277, 288

(1995).

v.
Order
The court ORDERS that defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings be, and is hereby, granted, and that plaintiff's claims
for relief other than for breach of contract be, and are hereby,
dismissed.
SIGNED June 8, 2017.

District

4