2:24-cv-05951
E.D.N.YSep 10, 2025Background
- On June 13, 2023, plaintiff Christian Crowe was injured in a motor vehicle accident; he alleges medical and mental injuries, emergency treatment, diagnostic procedures, and over $75,000 in losses.
- Crowe sued Plymouth Rock Management (Plymouth) and misnamed Geico Indemnity Company as "Geico Insurance Company," seeking disclosure of the at-fault driver’s policy limits and damages under New York Insurance Law §§ 5104 and 2601.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6); Crowe proceeded pro se and did not oppose the motions.
- The Court found no federal-question jurisdiction but—after Geico disclosed that Geico Indemnity is a Nebraska corporation with principal place of business in Maryland—concluded it has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (amount in controversy > $75,000; complete diversity exists).
- On the merits, Plymouth argued Crowe failed to plead a "serious injury" under N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d); Plymouth also submitted extensive extrinsic exhibits the Court declined to consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
- The Court denied Plymouth’s motion (finding the Complaint—liberally construed—plausibly alleges a serious injury and preserves a § 2601 claim because Plymouth did not move to dismiss it) and granted Geico’s motion (no allegations against Geico; leave to amend denied).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Complaint invokes federal statutes; alleges New York domicile and Plymouth NJ domicile; amount > $75,000 | Defendants argued lack of federal question; Geico noted correct corporate citizenship | Court: No § 1331 jurisdiction; diversity jurisdiction under § 1332 exists after Geico disclosed corporate domicile; 12(b)(1) motions denied |
| Sufficiency of claim under N.Y. Ins. Law § 5104 ("serious injury") against Plymouth | Crowe alleges medical & mental injuries, ER care, diagnostics, PT, and > $75,000 in losses | Plymouth: complaint fails to plead "serious injury" as defined in § 5102(d); submitted medical records | Court: Liberally construed pro se complaint plausibly alleges a serious injury; 12(b)(6) denial for Plymouth |
| Sufficiency of claim under N.Y. Ins. Law § 2601 (unfair claim practices) against Plymouth | Complaint cites § 2601 and alleges improper notice/denial of disclosure of policy limits | Plymouth did not move to dismiss § 2601 or argue no private right of action | Court: Did not sua sponte dismiss § 2601 claim because Plymouth failed to brief it; claim remains |
| Claims against Geico | Crowe named Geico and notes Geico insured his vehicle | Geico: No factual allegations against it; claims pertain to Plymouth only | Court: Complaint contains no allegations against Geico; granted 12(b)(6) dismissal of Geico without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. McMahon, 75 F.4th 62 (2d Cir. 2023) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend required only if complaint suggests a valid claim might be stated)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to prove subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2017) (amount-in-controversy assessment guidance)