United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
ROGERS, et al. Plaintiffs,
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BARBARA M. G. LYNN CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property
Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No.
9). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Factual & Procedural Background
lawsuit stems from an Allstate homeowner's insurance
policy issued to Lael and Scott Rogers (“the
Rogers”). The policy was effective from February 17,
2016, to February 17, 2017.
around April 11, 2016, a wind and hail storm damaged the
Rogers' property. Shortly thereafter, the Rogers
submitted a claim for property damage resulting from the
storm. On July 28, 2016, Allstate assigned claims adjuster
Ethan Rosenfield to investigate the claim. The Rogers
believed Mr. Rosenfield's damage estimate was a
“severe under-adjustment” of their claim and
requested a re-inspection. On August 29, 2016, Allstate
assigned claims adjuster Chad Buchanan to conduct a second
adjustment, but Mr. Buchanan identified no additional damage
to the Rogers' property.
September 13, 2016, the Rogers hired a public adjuster to
inspect the property. That adjuster estimated the damage to
the property to be $51, 254.02. The Rogers sent the public
adjuster's information to Allstate, and requested that it
again re-inspect the property. The public adjuster provided
the location, cause of loss, pictures of the property,
specifications of the damage, and an estimate of the cost to
repair the damage. The Rogers assert that Allstate confirmed
receipt of that information on September 14, 2016. Allstate
declined to conduct another inspection.
January 19, 2017, the Rogers commenced this action in the
68th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, asserting claims
for breach of contract, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and Texas Insurance Code violations, and a breach of the
common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Allstate
timely removed the action to this Court. Allstate then filed
the pending motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) the Rogers
did not have standing under Rule 12(b)(1) because they failed
to provide a signed and sworn proof of loss ninety-one days
before filing suit, and (2) that the Rogers failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court addresses each argument in turn.
Applicable Legal Standard
first moves to dismiss for lack of standing, which is
required for a federal district court to have subject matter
jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). New Orleans
Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of New Orleans, 833 F.2d
583, 586 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III standing requires 1) a
concrete and particularized injury that is actual or
imminent; 2) a causal connection between the injury and the
alleged conduct; and 3) redressability. Lujan v. Defs. of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
also moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The purpose
of this requirement is to give the defendant fair notice of
what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Although detailed factual allegations are not
required, the pleading must present more than “an
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
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.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the alleged misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. A pleading that offers only “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation” of
the elements of a cause of action will not suffice.
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
When considering a defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, the court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and
views them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191,
205 (5th Cir. 2007).