871 F. Supp. 2d 862
W.D. Mo.2012Background
- This case concerns State Farm's motions to dismiss and strike, and Plaintiffs motion to file a Second Amended Complaint and stay ruling on dismissal.
- Plaintiff alleged an underinsured motorist claim with State Farm, which offered $33,000 and later reduced to $23,000 after Plaintiff rejected the higher amount.
- Plaintiff asserted breach of contract, vexatious refusal to pay, declaratory judgment, a proposed class action for unfair claims practices, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- State Farm argued the initial and amended pleadings contradicted by attached correspondence, and that several claims fail as a matter of law under Missouri law.
- Plaintiff sought, in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, an expanded class, injunctive relief, and a court-supervised program overseeing claims practices; Defendant argued amendments would be futile and prejudicial.
- The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to amend, struck certain allegations (Hurricane Katrina and McKinsey model) under Rule 12(f), and denied as moot or denied other relief sought; Plaintiff must file the Second Amended Complaint by a set deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Plaintiff seeks amendment to address defects and add class allegations | Amendments would be futile and prejudicial; tactics amount to gamesmanship | GRANTED IN PART as to Count I; other counts await further analysis/denial in parts |
| Whether Count I (breach of contract) is futile | Plaintiff pled damages up to policy limits | Attachments show 23k was paid and covenant not implied | Not futile; Count I viable; implied covenant claims omitted |
| Whether Count II (vexatious refusal to pay) is futile | Plaintiff pled delay/denial without reasonable cause | Payment and negotiations negate vexatious claim | Not futile at this stage; plausible claim remains GRANTED as to Count II |
| Whether Count III (declaratory judgment) is viable | Declaratory relief available alongside other remedies | Declaratory relief duplicative of breach of contract; no adequate reason for separate relief | DENIED as futile; declaratory relief dismissed due to adequate legal remedy and duplicative nature |
| Whether Counts IV and V (injunctive/equitable relief) are viable for a class | Class-wide relief appropriate and necessary | Inadequate remedy at law; class certification plausible | DENIED as to Counts IV and V; no adequate class or irreparable harm shown; relief deemed futile |
| Whether class certification is viable given Plaintiff’s membership | Plaintiff could represent the class or be fitted to modify class | Plaintiff not a current member; likely lacks typical issues; class definition too broad | All class claims futile; Plaintiff cannot represent class at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading requires plausible grounds for relief)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (constitutional pleading standards; no heightened factual pleading required)
- Overcast v. Billings Mut. Ins. Co., 11 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc 2000) (insurer-insured implied duties not elevating to fiduciary claims in first-party context)
- Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) (limitations on injunctive/equitable relief in insurance dispute contexts)
- Goerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. banc 2011) (injunction/remedies must be grounded in recognized claims)