Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., No. 2:2020cv00300 - Document 49 (M.D. Ala. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: (1) Def Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.'s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 45 ) is granted. (2) Def Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. must file its amended answer on or before 6/18/2021. Plf Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation must answer def Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.'s counterclaim by 7/2/2021. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/11/2021. (cwl, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. Doc. 49 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, a non-profit corporation, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20cv300-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER This case comes before the court on defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc’s motion for leave to file an amended answer. Insurance Corporation agreements, Munich which allegedly (AMIC) the parties breached reinsurance billings. Plaintiff Alabama Municipal by sued Munich call failing regarding “treaties,” to pay that certain See Alabama Mun. Ins. Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., --- F. Supp. 3rd ----, 2021 WL 981495 (M.D. Ala. 2021) (discussing case in more detail). (Thompson, J.) One of the questions Dockets.Justia.com at issue in the complaint, and therefore central to the case, involves the allocation of certain bills across the parties’ various agreements. Munich thus seeks to assert the a counterclaim regarding under the relevant treaties. parties’ rights As AMIC notes, Munich’s answer “addressed these same facts but did not assert a counterclaim for declaratory relief.” (Doc. 47) at counterclaim amendment.1 2. Munich (which now AMIC moves argues is Pltf.’s Resp. to assert compulsory) the by For the reasons discussed below, Munich’s motion for leave to amend is due to be granted. Amendments to pleadings to add a counterclaim are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, Advisory Committee Notes, See 2009 Amendments (“An amendment to add a counterclaim will be governed by Rule 15.”);2 Zirnis v. Huntsville City Bd. 1. Munich appears not to contest AMIC’s characterization of the counterclaim as compulsory. 2. Until the 2009 Amendments to the Federal Rules, Rule 13(f) governed the amendment of a pleading to add a counterclaim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13, Advisory 2 of Educ., 2019 WL 2501956 at *1 (N.D. Ala. June 17, 2019) (Kallon, J.). Under Rule 15(a)(2), once the time to amend as a matter of course has expired, a party may amend only with the opposing party’s written consent or See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). court’s leave. the In the instant case, Munich seeks the court’s leave to amend. The decision whether to grant leave to amend a pleading is “committed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” Shipner v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 406 (11th Cir. 1989), and Rule 15 urges that “[t]he court should requires,” Circuit has amendment.” freely Fed. R. give Civ. therefore P. leave when 15(a)(2). “accepted a justice The policy of so Eleventh liberal U.S. for Use & Benefit of Krupp Steel Committee Notes, 2009 Amendment. Although such amendments are now governed by Rule 15, the underlying standard has not substantially changed: Rule 13(f) was “administered ... according to the same standard [in Rule 15(a)(2)] directing that leave should be freely given when justice so requires.” Id.; see, e.g., Vulcan Mktg., Inc. v. Tech. Consumer Prod., Inc., 614 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (N.D. Ala. 2009) (Acker, J.). 3 Prod., Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 831 F.2d 978, 983 (11th Cir. 1987). Still, a motion to amend may be denied on several grounds, including undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and See, futility. e.g., Carruthers v. BSA Advert., Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1218 (11th Cir. 2004). Here, AMIC’s primary argument is that a compulsory counterclaim is waived if not included in the answer; that is, it suggests that a compulsory counterclaim cannot be added if not initially raised. Rule 13(a) does provide that a pleading “must” state compulsory counterclaims, consequence Fed. for R. Civ. failing to P. 13(a)(1), assert a and “the compulsory counterclaim is a bar against the assertion of that claim in any other action.” Univalor Tr., SA v. Columbia Petroleum, LLC, 315 F.R.D. 374, 380 (S.D. Ala. 2016) (DuBose, J.). subsequent litigation. But this bar applies mainly to See, e.g., Spartan Grain & Mill 4 Co. v. Ayers, 517 F.2d 214, 220 (5th Cir. 1975);3 Byker v. Smith, 2019 WL 4408445 at *7 (N.D. Ala. June 17, 2019) (Ott, M.J.) (“[U]nder Rule 13(a), the failure to raise a compulsory generally cause counterclaim that later-filed lawsuit.”). claim in one lawsuit will to be barred in a Indeed, “[t]he argument for allowing amendment is especially compelling when, as here, the omitted counterclaim is compulsory” and thus Spartan Grain & cannot be asserted in a future case. Mill Co., 517 F.2d at 220 (internal citation omitted). Unsurprisingly, liberally courts allow amendment compulsory counterclaims. 2501956 at *2 in (allowing the of Eleventh pleadings Circuit to add See, e.g., Zirnis, 2019 WL amendment to add compulsory counterclaims under Rule 15(a)); Parke v. Glover, 2009 WL 4016425, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 18, 2009) (Steele, 3. In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. 5 J.) (allowing Univalor Tr., amendment SA, 315 under Rule F.R.D. at 13(f)); 380 see also (describing standards for amendment under Rule 15(a)).4 4. AMIC also argues that, because it cannot be added as an amendment, the relevant counterclaim must be added as a supplemental counterclaim. Pltf.’s Resp. (Doc. 47) at 3. AMIC then argues that Munich has not met its burden to justify the allowance of a supplemental pleading. See id. But even if the proposed counterclaim is, in part, a supplemental pleading, the motion for leave to file is due to be granted. Supplemental pleadings are governed by Rule 15(d), under which courts have ensured “the liberal allowance of ... supplements to the pleading.” Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 984 (11th Cir. 2000). As this court has noted, motions to supplement pleadings are treated much like motions to amend: “the court’s discretion is broad, and ... that discretion should be exercised liberally ....” W. Alabama Women’s Ctr. v. Miller, 318 F.R.D. 143, 148 (M.D. Ala. 2016) (Thompson, J.). Here, at least one component of the proposed counterclaim satisfies the requirements of Rule 15(d): it occurred after the filing of the relevant pleading and bears a close relation to AMIC’s original claims. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (requiring that supplementation be based on an event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented). And the other questions guiding district courts considering supplemental pleadings--futility, prejudice, unreasonable delay--are the same as the court’s amendment inquiry. See W. Alabama Women’s Ctr., 318 F.R.D. at 148. Accordingly, to the extent 6 Accordingly, the relevant question is whether, under Rule 15(a)(2), “justice ... requires” granting Munich leave to amend its answer. it does. efficient The court finds that Allowing the amendment will facilitate the resolution of the underlying claims (including as to issues that Munich may be unable to raise outside of this case) in a single proceeding. See, e.g., T. J. Stevenson & Co. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, 629 F.2d 338, 370 (5th Cir. 1980) (“To disallow a compulsory counterclaim would enable the opposing party to bar recovery in a later suit ....”); Byker, 2019 WL 4408445 at *7 (“[T]he fact that a proposed counterclaim would be compulsory under Rule 13(a) tends necessary, the court construes Munich’s motion as both a motion to amend and a motion to supplement. See Wright & Miller, 6A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1504 (3d ed.) (“[T]he distinction between amended and supplemental pleadings is sometimes ignored completely. Inasmuch as the discretion exercised by the court in deciding whether to grant leave to amend is similar to that exercised on a motion for leave to file a supplemental pleading, the court’s inattention to the formal distinction between amendment and supplementation is of no consequence.”). 7 to cut in favor of granting leave to amend because the claim may otherwise be precluded if refiled in another action.”). Moreover, AMIC did not raise any concerns regarding delay or prejudice, and any such argument would have been unavailing. The deadline for amending pleadings has not yet passed; discovery will not be complete for nearly a year. There is also purposeful See Uniform Scheduling Order (Doc. 44). no delay, indication as the of policy gamesmanship underpinning or the proposed counterclaim was apparently provided to Munich recently. 3. See Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 45) at And, finally, “the mere passage of time without more is an insufficient reason to deny a motion to amend.” Uter v. Peacock, 2005 WL 8158698 at *2 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 28, 2005) (Butler, J.).5 5. The short delay at issue here does not rise to the level at which the Eleventh Circuit has denied leave to amend. See, e.g., Campbell v. Emory Clinic, 166 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 1999) (noting that “[p]rejudice and undue delay are inherent in an amendment asserted after the close of discovery and 8 Given relation Rule 15(a)’s between the liberal proposed standard, the counterclaim close and the facts already at issue in the case, and the lack of any substantial reason to deny Munich’s motion, the court finds that Munich’s counterclaim should be allowed. *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: (1) Defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 45) is granted. (2) Defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. must file its amended answer on or before June 18, 2021. Plaintiff Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation must answer defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.’s counterclaim by July 2, 2021. DONE, this the 11th day of June, 2021. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE after dispositive motions have been filed, briefed, and decided”). 9
]]>
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.
