Great Northern Insurance Company v. Recall Total Information Management, Inc.
8:13-cv-01829
D. MarylandAug 1, 2014Background
- Great Northern Insurance sues as Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr's subrogee for losses from warehouse roof collapse.
- Defendants Recall Total Information Management and Recall Secure Destruction Services are Delaware corporations with Georgia nexus; warehouse located in Maryland.
- WilmerHale stored records at the Warehouse under Recall's Master Services Agreement.
- Roof collapse occurred June 28, 2012, destroying property and killing a Recall worker; Plaintiff paid WilmerHale and seeks subrogation.
- Plaintiff amended to add Piard (Maryland resident, temp worker) and Kelly Services, Inc. as defendants; alleged Piard caused the collapse by operating an order picker not properly trained/certified.
- Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the gross negligence claim; subject matter and supplemental jurisdiction discussed later
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint plausibly states gross negligence | Plaintiff argues the amendments show willful disregard of hazards and training failures | Recall argues the claim is conclusory and not properly pleaded | Plaintiff's claim plausibly states gross negligence |
| Choice of law for gross negligence | Maryland law should apply as the tort occurred there | New York law may govern contract-related claims per the agreement | Maryland law applies to gross negligence; no heightened pleading standard under Maryland/New York comparison |
| Use of MOSH report in dismissal | MOSH report should support the complaint's allegations | MOSH report conflicts with allegations and could defeat claims | MOSH report cannot foreclose discovery; cannot be sole basis to dismiss |
| Subject matter jurisdiction if gross negligence dismissed | If gross negligence is dismissed, remaining claims could fall short of threshold | Without gross negligence, jurisdiction may fail due to liability cap | Counts II and III remain under supplemental jurisdiction; jurisdiction preserved |
| Propriety of denying dismissal given asserted liability cap | Recovery could exceed cap only via gross negligence claim | Cap could strip Counts II/III of jurisdictional basis | Denial of dismissal stands; Counts II–VI remain through supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading; not required to prove facts)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (rule that pleaded facts must show plausible claim)
- Proctor v. Metro. Aoney Store Corp., 645 F. Supp. 2d 464 (D. Md. 2009) (applies notice-pleading standard to gross negligence in diversity suit)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (supplemental jurisdiction principles under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a))
- Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 69 F.3d 669 (2d Cir. 1995) (examples of relying on attached investigative reports with caution)
- Barbre v. Pope, 935 A.2d 699 (Md. 2007) (gross negligence requires more than simple negligence; recklessness)
- ITC0 Corp. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 722 F.2d 42 (4th Cir. 1983) (choice-of-law rules in diversity context)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stenter Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (prediction of choice of law in torts)
- Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 69 F.3d 669 (2d Cir. 1995) (appellate discussion on evidentiary reports)