Morrison v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 3:23-cv-00451

Plaintiff Gary Morrison suffered flood damage to his home in Huntington, West Virginia, which was insured under a policy from Indian Harbor Insurance Company, a nonadmitted surplus lines insurer.
The insurance policy was procured through Neptune Flood Inc. (a surplus lines licensee/excess line broker), and Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc. served as the administrator/loss adjuster for the claim.
Following the flood, Morrison was paid the actual cash value (less depreciation and deductible) and signed a Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss, but alleges he had already completed repairs, entitling him to full replacement cost under the policy.
Morrison alleges Defendants misrepresented the applicable coverage, improperly deducted depreciation, and failed to assist or inform him adequately about how to recover depreciation.
Morrison brought claims for breach of contract (declaratory judgment), bad faith, and violation of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), seeking both individual and class-wide relief; Defendants moved to dismiss all claims.
The Court considers the sufficiency of the pleadings under the Twombly and Iqbal plausibility standard, and whether Morrison's claims meet the required legal thresholds at the motion to dismiss stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract for failing to pay full replacement cost	Repairs completed before depreciation deduction; entitled to replacement cost from outset	Actual cash value payment was consistent with policy; no claim for depreciation made	Denied dismissal—factual issues exist, pleadings plausible
Common law bad faith claim	Coextensive with breach of contract; refusal to pay full amount/assist was bad faith	No bad faith without breach of contract	Denied dismissal—claim survives with breach of contract
UTPA – General business practice allegation	Alleged multiple, discrete acts; plausible inference of general practice	Single claim does not show general business practice; insufficient allegations	Denied dismissal—premature without discovery
UTPA claim against Neptune (surplus lines broker)	Neptune acted outside statutory duties, including making coverage decisions	Statutory immunity for brokers; acts outside authority by 'rogue' employees not actionable	Denied dismissal—factual dispute on Neptune’s role; not dismissible now

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (set the plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 8)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarified pleading standards and when claims are plausible)