BARRON v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
7:25-cv-00004
| M.D. Ga. | Jul 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Israel Barron alleged property damage at 195 Old Brookfield Rd E, Tifton, Georgia, covered by a State Farm homeowner's insurance policy.
- Plaintiff claimed a sudden and accidental plumbing system failure caused covered loss on November 17, 2023, and that State Farm improperly denied payment after investigation.
- Complaint filed in Georgia state court, asserting breach of contract, bad faith (under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6), and attorney’s fees claims; case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- State Farm filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the court treated as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Rule 12(c).
- The dispute focused on whether Plaintiff’s complaint plausibly alleged specific policy provisions breached, entitlement to bad faith damages, and whether claims for attorney’s fees were available under the general Georgia statutes cited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract claim | General allegations of coverage and denial suffice; not required to list every breached provision. | Plaintiff did not specify which policy provisions were breached or the basis for an amount owed. | Dismissed for failure to plead specific provision. |
| Bad faith under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 | Sufficient facts pleaded to show bad faith denial of a covered claim. | No coverage was established; reliance on § 33-6-34 improper as it provides no private right of action. | Dismissed; no coverage pleaded, so no bad faith claim. |
| Attorney’s fees under two statutes | No argument made in response to dismissal for general attorney’s fees statutes. | O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6 provides exclusive remedy for attorney’s fees in insurance disputes. | Dismissed as barred and abandoned. |
| Request for oral argument | Not at issue. | Requested oral argument on the motion to dismiss. | Denied; not required by rules or necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (sets the plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (elaborates on the pleading standards from Twombly)
- U.S. v. Wood, 925 F.2d 1580 (11th Cir. 1991) (Rule 12(c) judgment on pleadings follows same standard as 12(b)(6))
- Burgess v. Religious Tech. Ctr., Inc., 600 F. App’x 657 (11th Cir. 2015) (pleading must allege specific breached contractual provision)