Valoe v. Allstate Insurance Company
2:22-cv-00182
E.D. Wis.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Danielle M. Valoe, proceeding pro se, sued Allstate Insurance Company and certain employees, alleging mishandling of her uninsured motorist claim and associated third-party lien issues.
- The plaintiff claimed an oral agreement with Allstate's adjustor, Jonathan Paul, permitting her to negotiate directly with a lienholder, and alleged breach when Allstate handled the funds differently.
- The court previously dismissed the initial complaint for failing to state a contract claim, noting possible allegations of fraud instead, and allowed Valoe to amend her complaint.
- Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged breach of a "promise" made by Allstate and fraud in the handling and recall of a settlement payment check.
- The court analyzed the amended complaint for sufficiency under Rule 8(a) (short and plain statement) and Rule 9(b) (heightened requirements for fraud claims), ultimately dismissing the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | Allstate/Paul broke oral promise re: lien negotiation & settlement check | Not specifically addressed (screening phase) | Complaint failed to allege required contract elements; dismissed |
| Fraud | Allstate/Paul acted under false pretenses to recall check, presented fraudulent information to plaintiff’s bank | Not specifically addressed (screening phase) | Plaintiff failed to plead fraud with requisite specificity under Rule 9(b) |
| Sufficiency under Rule 8(a) and 9(b) | Complaint sufficiently explains dispute and harm | Not specifically addressed | Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations for either contract or fraud claim |
| Appointment of Counsel / Service | Plaintiff needed assistance to prosecute claim and serve defendants | Not specifically addressed | Denied as moot, as case dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (notice pleading and plausibility requirements)
- Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548 (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Kiebala v. Boris, 928 F.3d 680 (court's limited obligation in case development for pro se litigants)