Suing All State Farm Insurers Unconscionable
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm Auto”) and
Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm General”)
moved the court to dismiss all Plaintiff's claims against the entities.
The motion was regarded as unopposed.
In Bridget Butler v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, State Farm
General Insurance Company, And State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, No. 3:22-Cv-03433, United States District Court, W.D.
Louisiana, Lake Charles Division (June 23, 2023) a Bridget Butler whose
home was damaged by two hurricanes sued three State Farm Insurance
companies when only one insured her against the risk of loss of her
property.
INTRODUCTION
Hurricane Laura made landfall near Lake Charles, Louisiana then
Hurricane Delta made landfall near Lake Charles, Louisiana. During the
relevant time period, Plaintiff Bridget Butler owned property in Monroe,
Louisiana. An entity of State Farm provided a policy of insurance to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to timely and
adequately compensate Plaintiff for her substantial losses pursuant to
the Policy. In turn, Plaintiff filed suit against State Farm Auto, State
Farm General, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm
Fire and Casualty”) claiming liability for damages for breach of
contract plus general damages and for statutory violations and penalties
under Louisiana Revised Statutes.
State Farm General and State Farm Auto moved for dismissal of the claims
against them. Plaintiff filed no response to the motion.
RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.”
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Complaint alleges that the “Defendant” issued and maintained a
Policy insuring Plaintiff's Property. The Complaint does not provide a
specific policy number, and the Complaint asserts a policy number was
unable to be identified because “Defendant” did not comply with
Plaintiff's request for production of the policy number.
Attached to their Motion to Dismiss State Farm General and State Farm
Auto put forth an insurance policy with the policy number 99-CC-X642-7,
and both companies assert that the attached policy is the Policy
referenced in the Complaint. The attached policy is from State Farm Fire
and Casualty and names Plaintiff as insured and the Property as the
location of premises insured with a policy period of twelve months
beginning August 25, 2020. State Farm General and State Farm Auto are
not listed as parties in the attached policy. Additionally, both State
Farm General and State Farm Auto maintain that neither entity has issued
a policy to Plaintiff.
Under Louisiana law, no action for breach of contract may lie in the
absence of privity of contract between the parties. State Farm General
and State Farm Auto are not parties to the attached policy, and each
assert it did not provide Plaintiff with any insurance coverage.
CONCLUSION
Defendants State Farm General Insurance Company and State Farm
Automobile Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss was granted.
Plaintiff maintains claims against State Farm Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company.
ZALMA OPINION
There should be no excuse for a plaintiff to require the State Farm
entities that did not insure Ms. Butler to move the court for dismissal.
A telephone call from defense counsel to plaintiff's counsel informing
Ms. Butler of the proper defendant and voluntarily dismiss the wrong
State Farm entities. The decision of the court was easy but Judge Cain
has more important things to do than deal with an unnecessary motion.
Sanctions against Plaintiff's attorney could have been warranted.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
