Gagnard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co
1:22-cv-04132
W.D. La.Apr 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Pamelyn Gagnard sued several State Farm entities over alleged insurance coverage for losses linked to a particular policy.
- The insurance policy at issue was actually issued by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, but Gagnard also sued State Farm General Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
- Gagnard’s original attorneys were from McClenny, Moseley & Associates; the firm was later removed due to irregularities in related litigation, and Gagnard proceeded pro se.
- State Farm moved to dismiss claims against State Farm General and State Farm Mutual Auto because neither issued the relevant policy.
- Gagnard did not oppose the motion or appear at the status conference.
- The court considered whether the complaint stated a claim for relief against the non-issuing State Farm defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gagnard has a claim against State Farm General and State Farm Mutual Auto for breach of the insurance contract | Not expressly argued, but sued all State Farm entities | Only State Farm Fire & Casualty issued the relevant policy; no contract with the other State Farm entities | No claim; Dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted | Not opposed | Complaint fails as to non-issuing defendants | Complaint dismissed as to those defendants |
| Whether privity of contract is required for breach of contract claims | Not addressed | No breach can be found without privity; only the actual insurer faces liability | Privity required; no claim stated |
| The proper parties against whom to assert insurance claims | Not addressed | Only the issuing insurer may be sued for policy breach | Only State Farm Fire & Casualty remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262 (standard for facial plausibility on a motion to dismiss)
- Serrano v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 975 F.3d 488 (detail required in pleadings)
- Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540 (conclusory allegations do not suffice in a complaint)