JAMES v. STATE FARM, No. 2:2010cv01482 - Document 13 (W.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. Signed by Judge William L. Standish on 3/1/2011. (md)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM E. JAMES, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 10-1482 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss Count I of the Complaint, Insurance Civil filed by Defendant State Company ("State Procedure 12 (b) (6). reasons below, discus Farm") (Doc. Farm Mutual Automobile pursuant No.3, Defendant's to Federal Dis.") "Mot. motion Rule For the is denied of without judice. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual History According to the Complaint, his cle at a redlight in downtown on August 24, 2007, when his car was William James had stopped ttsburgh, struck from the another vehicle driven by Shauna Lynn McPherson. Ms. James' vehi issued by State e was covered by an automobile Farm pursuant to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania, rear by At the time, surance policy law i the policy included under insured/uninsured motorist amount of $100,000. As a result of ("UIM") the coverage in the accident, Mr. James sustained numerous injuries, some of which may be permanent. After obtaining State Farm's consent made a demand insurance $25,000. r company compensation paid the from limits to settle, Ms. of her Mr. James McPherson, automobile whose policy, Mr. James then sought compensation from State Farm for the remainder of his damages. To date, State Farm has failed to provide that compensation. B. Procedural Background Plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on August 23, 2010, alleging in Count I that State Farm had breached the contract of insurance by failing to compensate him provisions of wi thout a for his his policy reasonable basi s Pennsylvania Bad Fa Defendant received injuries and in as Count violated 42 II Pa. that this Stat. Ann. complete controversy UIM refusal § 8371, or about h Statute. a copy of the complaint case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. on the on On November 5, 2010, State Farm timely removed October 8, 2010. based by requi ater di versi ty than of the $75,000, 2 parties exclusive §§ and of 1441 and 1446, an amount interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1332. 1 § Mr. James did not object to the removal. On November II, 2011, State Farm moved to dismiss Count I of the Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff had failed to plead the breach of contract claim to Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the 559 U.S. Plaintiff opposes the motion. their standard 544 (2007), in Bell and its progeny. The parties having fully br arguments, respective established matter is fed ripe for consideration. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE As noted above, U.S.C. as a § 1332. this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 Venue is appropriate in this District inasmuch substantial part of occurred in this District. the events g ng rise to the claim 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a) (2). III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Federal Rule pleading which (2) a short of Civil "states a Procedure claim for requires relief must that a contain. and plain statement of the claim showing that the The Rule further provides that pleader is entitled to relief." "[e]ach 8(a) allegation must be simple, "[n]o technical form is required." concise, Fed. R. and Civ. P. direct" 8(d). but "The Defendant states, without objection from Plaintiff, that Mr. James is a citizen of Pennsylvania and State Farm is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of Notice of Removal, Doc. business located in Bloomington, Illinois. No. I, <Jl<Jl 9-10. 3 touchstone of Rule 8 (a) (2) is whet a complaint's statement of facts is adequate to suggest an entitlement to ief under the legal theory invoked and thereby put the defendant on notice of the nature of the Antitrust Litig., *46, n.18 (3d plaintiff's claim." 618 F.3d 300, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17107, *45 Cir. Aug. 16, 2010) ) , citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565, n.l0. In the aftermath of Twombl 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 and U.S. L. 2d 868 (2009), and the interpretation of those two cases by the United States Court of the Appeals opinions, for the the Third Ci pleading t in a which standards series of precedential allow withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Procedure 12 (b) (6) have taken Beginning in Phillips v. Cir. no 2008), longer action;' sufficient instead 'a new County of Allegheny, to allege conduct.'" 515 F. 3d 224 s cts all Phill 550 U.S. at 563, n.8 e 515 "some complaints will allegations to make out a to relief, of a cause quo t in g Because Court held at least 'showing that the pI in order to give the defendant 4 of suggestive of (alteration in original.) require (3d 'it is F. 3 d at 2 33 , "[c]ontext matters in notice pleading," that to parameters. r mere complaint must complaint ral Rule of Civil slightly the Court of Appeals not [the proscribed] Twombly, on a some factual r is entitled ir notice of what the . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. York, 564 F.3d 636, In the of UPMC Appeals Shadyside, noted "bare-bones" conclusory City of 646 (3d Cir. 2009). Fowler v. Court see also McTernan v. at 555; Id. , that 578 F.3d 203 following allegations (3d Cir. Twombly that unlawfully harmed me" no longer suffice. and "the 2009) Iqbal, defendant A civil complaint must now include "sufficient factual matter to show that the claim is facially plausible." 550 U. S. "labels at 555, and Fowler, holding that conclusions" see also Twombly, 578 F.3d at 210; or a "a complaint formulaic which offers recitation only of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Thus, a the current formulation of the standard of review for motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6) asks the court determine if the plaintiff's claims are "plausible." has facial plausibility when the plaintiff to "A claim pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that Iqbal, Auto. the defendant 129 S. Ins. Belichick, Ct. Co. , is at 583 1949; F.3d 605 F.3d 223, 20-1615, 2010 2010) . "[W]hat liable 187, 230 misconduct 190 (3d Cir. alleged. " State Farm Mut. 2009) ; Mayer v. (3d Cir. 2010) ; and Bob v. Kuo, No. LEXIS suffices to necessarily depends the see also Gelman v. App. U.S. for 14965, * 4 (3d Cir. withstand a motion to July 20, dismiss on substantive law and the elements of the 5 specific claim asserted." LEXIS 17107, *46, n.18. factual less. detail to Broke 2010 U.S. App. Some claims will demand relatively more this satis standard, See Arista Records LLC v. 2010), Antitrust, ~~~~~----~~~~ Doe, whi others 604 F.3d 110, 120 require (2d Cir. stating that although the Supreme Court's recent Rule 8 decisions Iqbal did held [where] not that needed quotation heighten pleading complaints to omitted; requirements, "require render a alteration claim in ctual Twombl y amplification plausible." the and ( Internal original.) "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for reI f will . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its Antitrust, j udic 2010 I U.S. experience and common sense." App. LEXIS 17170 at *177, Brokerage quoting Iqbal, id.; McTernan, 577 F.3d at 530 (same.) In sum, the court must take three steps in determining the sufficiency of the complaint: it must (1) note "the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim;" (2) identify allegations that "are no more than conclusions" and thus "are not entitled to the well assumption leaded of factual truth," 629 Iqbal, at 129 S.Ct. (3) allegations "plausibly give rise to an ent Warminster and F.3d, 1947. assume and the determine lement for relief." 121, 130 (3d Cir. ly that the p 6 of if they Sant v. 2010), "A complaint may not merely because it appears unli veracity quoting be dismissed intiff can prove those facts or will ultimately prevail on the merits. The Supreme Court's formulation of the pleading standard in Twombly does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage, but instead simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." McTernan, omitted. ) At determine if 564 stage this F.3d of Plaintiff has of Del. Valley, No. the 646 (internal litigation, sufficiently whether he can prove them. Servo at Fowler, 09-4182, the pled 578 Court must claims, his F.3d at 2010 u.S. quotations not 213; App. Culinary LEXIS 13485, *10 (3d Cir. June 30, 2010). IV. DISCUSSION As the parties contract, the existence of breach of a agree, plaintiff a must contract, duty to plead including imposed by the (State resul ting from that breach. Motion to Dismiss, state Doc. No.4, a claim facts to its for show: essential contract; breach (1) at 3, Corp. , both citing Pennsy. 895 A.2d Corestates Bank, Super. 1999).) Ct. 595, N.A. 600 (2) (3) damages and v. Supply Inc. Cutillo, a Farm's Brief in Support of "Def.'s Brief," at 4; (Pa. the terms; Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to State Farm's Motion to Dismiss, 12, of Super. 723 v. No. American Recycling Ct. A.2d Doc. 2006) , 1053, quoting 1058 (Pa. The parties do not dispute that there was a 7 valid and en rceable contract of insurance between themselves, thus the first element is satisfied. Plaintiff also alleges that there is no question that Ms. McPherson $25,000 was her liable the insurance company juries <j[<j[ 7, the 16, 19.) accident with the prior James provides s he sustained. uninsured motor for each person, "u" on the Declarations Page coverage that (Complaint, The insurance poli cy 2 in effect at the date of amount of $100,000 This him, and the for the severe and permanent injur to him was inadequate to compensate Mr. approval of State Farm, paid to is an (see essential coverage in the as evidenced by the letter Mot. term adequately pled in Paragraph 3 of vehicle of Dis., the Exh. A, contract Complaint. at 2.) and is In Paragraphs 8 through 15 of the Complaint, Plaintiff described his physical injuries, consequential together with the damages he will In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6), a court may generally consider only the complaint, exhibits attached thereto, and matters of public record. See Consolo Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). An exception to this rule is that the court may also consider "an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document." rd. Defendant has attached to the motion to dismiss a copy of the policy issued to Mr. James, number 95 0835-B09-35A. This policy appears to cover the period January 22 through August 9, 2006, which does not include the date on which the accident occurred. However, a State Farm custodian of records certified that "[t]he policy was in effect on the loss date of August 24, 2007." (See Mot. Dis., Exh. A, at 1.) Plaintiff does not object to this exhibit and the Court will therefore consider its contents without converting the pending motion to a motion for summary judgment. 8 continue to earning capa care. experience, y, e.g., physical pain, expense, limitations, and diminution ongoing of medical He has also alleged that he sought and received consent from State insurance Farm to company dated August 18, accept the (Complaint, 2010, $25,000 16), err as from Ms. McPherson's evidenced by a from Beverly Raker, a State letter Farm Claim representative, attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint. Plaintiff further dr i ving an damages exceeds alleges underinsured the that vehicle $25,000 he because and was because able to Ms. McPherson value the was his recover of from her, State Farm has a duty to compensate him for those damages, up to the limit which he failed of the filed to policy, his i.e., $100,000. complaint, compensate him and August thus 23, breached As of 2010, the date on Defendant duty under its had the (Complaint, crrcrr 19-20.) contract. These factual allegations are pled in sufficient detail to satisfy State Farm Mut. LEXIS 1613, motion to standards eading the Auto. *3-*6, dismiss of Ins. CA No. Co., *11-*14 the (W.O. breach of Compare Twombly. Pa. 10 1651, Jan. contract Rubin 2011 U.S. 7, v. Dist. 2011), claim denying under similar facts and argument. State Farm cites to the provisions of the insurance policy which provide that the insured and the company must agree on two issues, fault and amount, before State Farm is 9 required to pay damages r bodily injury to an insured. (Mot. ~ Dis., 4.) The same section provides that if either party does not consent to arbitrate or if the arbitrators s ected by the parties cannot agree on a third arbitrator, the insured shall file suit against the uninsured mot st and State Farm "to have a jury decide the amount that of damages not he whether is tort feasor , and contract." entitled State (Def.'s Brief at 4.) to recover Farm breached from t the insurance Defendant states that while "was still obta ng relevant information on the claim" at 3), led In Mr. short, James State alleging Farm breach of su argues alleging that contract Mr. before breach James the of contract. "j umped part s the had gun" by agreed to disagree on the fault and amount of damages. As the Court of Appeals concluded in a case involving almost identical language from a State Farm insurance contract, the arbitration disagreement clause involving is the not triggered insured's unless legal there is entitlement a to collect damages or the amount of the damages. State Farm Mut. Auto. (3d Cir. Ins. Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710, There appears to be no question of both agree parties rty has that Ms. McPherson alleged or argued that the amount of Mr. James' ul t damages. 10 there Thus, 717 in this case because was is 2000). at a fault; neither disagreement over at this point in the litigation, the Court cannot termine if arbitration clause must be invoked. Plaintiff Whether that has properly alleged a claim is precluded by the breach terms of contract. of the insurance contract or whether there are conditions precedent which must be satisfied before he may recover on that cIa the insurance Defendant's policy motion to are matters dismiss is yet under the terms of to therefore prejudice and the argument may be raised aga be determined. denied without at an appropriate time in the future. An appropriate Order follows. March 2011 jt&~ /J4u;{J;j " - - _ William L. Standish United States District Judge I 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
