Breach of Contract Required to Sue for Bad Faith
Post 4975
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g6znKECB, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gzUBQqcj and at https://lnkd.in/gnHHbZbp and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan (“Foremost”) moved the court to dismiss in C & S Properties – I, LLC v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, Civil Action No. 24-462, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (January 10, 2025)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Damages from Hurricane Ida caused insurance claims concerning three properties owned by Plaintiff. The properties were each covered by separate insurance policies issued by Foremost when they were damaged by Hurricane Ida in August 2021.
Plaintiff alleged that, while Foremost has been in possession of sufficient evidence of the losses or had the opportunity to fully apprise itself of the actual losses and damages, it has failed to pay the amount due under the policies required by Louisiana law.
Plaintiff sued Foremost in Louisiana state court asserting claims under Louisiana law for breach of contract and bad faith damages. Foremost removed the matter to the USDC on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Foremost moved to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims based upon the improper cumulation of claims and because the suit did not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
Joining Claims
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 provides that, “[a] party asserting a claim . . . may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.”
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant can seek dismissal of a complaint, or any part of it, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Dismissal is appropriate when the complaint on its face shows a bar to relief.
ANALYSIS
Regarding the insurance policies attached by Foremost, the Court found that those are referenced in Plaintiff’s state court Petition and are central to Plaintiff’s claims and thus may be rightfully considered by the Court.
Cumulation of Claims
The Court found that Plaintiff properly included its claims concerning each of the three properties in one lawsuit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 18(a).
Failure to State a Claim
The allegations in the Petition are insufficient to support a breach of contract claim. The Petition contains only vague and conclusory allegations and does not refer to specific actions or omissions by Foremost.
Plaintiff alleged that Hurricane Ida caused substantial amounts of damage to the exterior, interior, roof, and other structures of the Insured Properties, that Plaintiff provided timely notice of the loss event to Defendant. The Court found that Plaintiff’s Petition failed to state a breach of contract claim against Foremost.
The Court reached the same conclusion with respect to Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. The Petition merely sets forth the legal standard applicable to Louisiana bad faith claims, without providing factual support for Plaintiff’s allegations that Foremost acted in bad faith.
Leave to Amend
In its Opposition brief, Plaintiff requested leave to amend its Petition if the Court agrees with Foremost that the Petition is deficient.
While Plaintiff has failed to explain how it would amend its Petition Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days to file an amended petition addressing the deficiencies raised as to the sufficiency of its breach of contract and bad faith claims.
The Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule 12 was granted.
Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an amended pleading that addresses the deficiencies raised in the Motion to Dismiss regarding the sufficiency of its breach of contract and bad faith claims. Failure to amend will result in dismissal.
ZALMA OPINION
The USDC requires proper, detailed and effective pleading when suing for breach of contract or the tort of bad faith, not just a parade of horribles alleged against the defendant with the statutory requirements without supportive facts. The USDC spend much of its opinion explaining to the Plaintiff what is required to plead a viable complaint against Foremost if the facts exist.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Concealing a Weapon Used in a Murder is an Intentional & Criminal Act
Post 5002
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmacf4DK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gav3GAA2 and at https://lnkd.in/ggxP49GF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
In Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company Howard I. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Kimberly L. Rosenberg; Howard I. Rosenberg v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 22-3275, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 11, 2025) the Third Circuit resolved whether the insurers owed a defense for murder and acts performed to hide the fact of a murder and the murder weapon.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Adam Rosenberg and Christian Moore-Rouse befriended one another while they were students at the Community College of Allegheny County. On December 21, 2019, however, while at his parents’ house, Adam shot twenty-two-year-old Christian in the back of the head with a nine-millimeter Ruger SR9C handgun. Adam then dragged...
Renewal Notices Sent Electronically Are Legal, Approved by the State and Effective
Post 5000
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gpJzZrec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmkJFqD and at https://lnkd.in/gn3EqeVV and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Washington state law allows insurers to deliver insurance notices and documents electronically if the party has affirmatively consented to that method of delivery and has not withdrawn the consent. The Plaintiffs argued that the terms and conditions statement was not “conspicuous” because it was hidden behind a hyperlink included in a single line of small text. The court found that the statement was sufficiently conspicuous as it was bolded and set off from the surrounding text in bright blue text.
In James Hughes et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp et al., No. 3:24-cv-05114-DGE, United States District Court (February 14, 2025) the USDC resolved the dispute.
The court’s reasoning focused on two main points:
1 whether the ...
Rescission in Michigan Requires Preprocurement Fraud
Post 4999
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gGCvgBpK, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gern_JjU and at https://lnkd.in/gTPSmQD6 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 4999 posts.
Lie About Where Vehicle Was Garaged After Policy Inception Not Basis for Rescission
This appeal turns on whether fraud occurred in relation to an April 26, 2018 renewal contract for a policy of insurance under the no-fault act issued by plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”).
In Samuel Tourkow, by David Tourkow v. Michael Thomas Fox, and Sweet Insurance Agency, formerly known as Verbiest Insurance Agency, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. Encompass Indemnity Company, et al, Nos. 367494, 367512, Court of Appeals of Michigan (February 12, 2025) resolved the claims.
The plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company, issued a no-fault insurance policy to Jon and Joyce Fox, with Michael Fox added as an additional insured. The dispute centers on whether fraud occurred in...
Insurance Fraud Leads to Violent Crime
Post 4990
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDdKMN29, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKKeHSQg and at https://lnkd.in/gvUU_a-8 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT NEVER GETS BETTER
In The People v. Dennis Lee Givens, B330497, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (February 3, 2025) Givens appealed to reverse his conviction for human trafficking and sought an order for a new trial.
FACTS
In September 2020, Givens matched with J.C. on the dating app “Tagged.” J.C., who was 20 years old at the time, had known Givens since childhood because their mothers were best friends. After matching, J.C. and Givens saw each other daily, and J.C. began working as a prostitute under Givens’s direction.
Givens set quotas for J.C., took her earnings, and threatened her when she failed to meet his demands. In February 2022, J.C. confided in her mother who then contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. The police ...
Police Officer’s Involvement in Insurance Fraud Results in Jail
Post 4989
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gr_w5vcC, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggs7dVfg and https://lnkd.in/gK3--Kad and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.
Von Harris was convicted of bribery, forgery, and insurance fraud. He appealed his conviction and sentence. His appeal was denied, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.
In State Of Ohio v. Von Harris, 2025-Ohio-279, No. 113618, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District (January 30, 2025) the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the trial court sentenced Harris. The trial court sentenced Harris to six months in the county jail on Count 15; 12 months in prison on Counts 6, 8, 11, and 13; and 24 months in prison on Counts 5 and 10, with all counts running concurrent to one another for a total of 24 months in prison. The jury found Harris guilty based on his involvement in facilitating payments to an East Cleveland ...
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRyw5QKG, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gtNWJs95 and at https://lnkd.in/g4c9QCu3, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
To Dispute an Arbitration Finding Party Must File Dispute Within 20 Days
Post 4988
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT SUFFICIENT TO DISPUTE ARBITRATION LATE
In Howard Roy Housen and Valerie Housen v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 4D2023-2720, Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District (January 22, 2025) the Housens appealed a final judgment in their breach of contract action.
FACTS
The Housens filed an insurance claim with Universal, which was denied, leading them to file a breach of contract action. The parties agreed to non-binding arbitration which resulted in an award not
favorable to the Housens. However, the Housens failed to file a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision within the required 20 days. Instead, they filed a motion for a new trial 29 days after the arbitrator’s decision, citing a clerical error for the delay.
The circuit court ...
