Walker et al v. The Hartford Insurance Company et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying Defendants' 12 13 Motions to dismiss or substitute and amend the case caption. Plaintiffs granted 30 days to amend their complaint. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM) cc: plaintiffs

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

GLEN WALKER and PATRICIA
B'HYMER,

10

CASE NO. C17-1201-JCC
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

12
THE HARTFORD INSURANCE
COMPANY and HARTFORD
EMPLOYEES, CARRIE STILL AND JANE
JOHNSON,

13
14
15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant the Hartford Insurance Company’s
motion to dismiss or substitute and amend the caption (Dkt. Nos. 12) and Defendants Carrie Still
and Jane Johnson’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13). Having thoroughly considered the parties’
briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES
Defendants’ motions for the reasons explained herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Glen Walker and Patricia B’Hymer, acting pro se, filed a complaint in King

County Superior Court on April 26, 2017 and an amended complaint on July 14, 2017, naming

25

as defendants the “Hartford Insurance Company” and employees Carrie Still and Jane Johnson.

26

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the Harford Insurance Company falsely denied their insurance

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 1

1

claims for the theft and destruction of a number of their vehicles and acted in bad faith in doing

2

so, causing Plaintiffs emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1.) The Washington State Insurance

3

Commissioner accepted service of the amended complaint on behalf of Twin City Fire Insurance

4

Company (“Twin City”). (Dkt. No. 13 at 2.) Defendants removed the case to federal court on

5

August 9, 2017 (Dkt. No. 3.) Defendants Still and Johnson now move to be dismissed as parties.

6

(Dkt. No. 13.) The Hartford Insurance Company moves to dismiss the complaint or to substitute

7

Twin City and amend the case caption to reflect this substitution. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff’s reply

8

requests and additional thirty days to retain an attorney and amend the complaint. (Dkt. No. 15.)

9

II.

DISCUSSION

10

A.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

11

A defendant may move for dismissal when a plaintiff “fails to state a claim upon which

12

relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court

13

accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most

14

favorable to the non-moving party. Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007).

15

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must cite facts supporting a “plausible” cause of

16

action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007). A claim has “facial

17

plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw

18

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.

19

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). The Rule 8 pleading standard

20

“does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-

21

defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

22

Plaintiffs who proceed pro se “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings

23

drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Additionally, pro se

24

litigants are entitled to notice of deficiencies in a complaint and leave to amend before a district

25

court can dismiss such a complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

26

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 2

1

B.

2

Defendants move to dismiss claims against “Hartford Insurance Company,” asserting that

3

this company is not a legal entity in existence and did not issue the policy at issue. (Dkt. No. 12.)

4

In the alternative, Defendant asks the Court to substitute Twin Cities as the named defendant.

5

(Id.) Defendants’ corporate disclosure statement identifies Twin City as the underwriting

6

company that issued the policy. (Dkt. No. 4 at 1.) Twin City is owned by Hartford Fire Insurance

7

Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hartford Financial Services Group. (Id.)

8

Claims against Hartford Insurance Company

The Court considers this motion in the context of the recent removal of the case to federal

9

court, and Plaintiffs’ current pro se status and request for time to amend the complaint. (Dkt.

10

Nos. 1, 15). In light of these circumstances, the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the

11

complaint and name a legal entity that may be sued. Plaintiffs have thirty (30) days from the

12

issuance of this order to amend the complaint.

13

C.

Claims against Employees Carrie Still and Jane Johnson

14

Plaintiffs’ complaint names Defendants Carrie Still and Jane Johnson, who are employed

15

by the Hartford Fire Insurance Company and work respectively as an investigator and claims

16

team leader for Twin City. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, 13 at 2.) Still and Johnson assert they have not yet

17

been served in this action. (Dkt. No. 13 at 2.)

18

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint against them because it fails to state a claim

19

upon which relief can be granted and cannot be rectified by amendment. (Dkt. No. 13 at 3); see

20

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). The complaint alleges generally that Hartford Insurance falsely

21

denied Plaintiffs’ insurance claims in bad faith and caused them emotional distress by doing so.

22

(Dkt. No. 1-1.) The complaint does not put forward specific allegations against Still or Johnson,

23

other than stating that Walker met with Still and offered to provide evidence about his claim,

24

which Still stated she did not need at the time. (Id.)

25
26

Courts in this district have held that under Washington consumer protection and
insurance fair conduct acts and tort law, when an employee adjuster of an insurance company

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 3

1

acts as an agent of the company and within the scope of employment, she is generally not subject

2

to liability for bad faith or negligence in the company’s denial of an insurance claim. See

3

International Ultimate, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 87 P.3d 774, 786˗87 (Ct. App.

4

Wash. 2004); Garoutte v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. C12-1787-MJP, Dkt. No. 23

5

at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2013). Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege that Still or Johnson acted as more

6

than adjusters or agents of the insurance company and does not allege they took actions outside

7

the scope of their employment that would make them liable to Plaintiffs. (See Dkt. No. 1-1.)

8
9

Taking into account Plaintiffs’ pro se status and request for time to amend, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint either dismissing

10

Defendants Still and Johnson or stating a cognizable claim against Defendants.

11

III.

12

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss or substitute and amend the

13

case caption are DENIED (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13). Plaintiffs are GRANTED an additional thirty (30)

14

days from the issuance of this order to amend their complaint. If Plaintiffs fail to satisfactorily do

15

so, Defendants may renew their motion to dismiss.

16

DATED this 10th day of October 2017.

19

A

20

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PAGE - 4