BROADCASTS.com

b'

\\nSuing All State Farm Insurers Unconscionable\\n\\nState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (\\u201cState Farm Auto\\u201d) and \\nDefendant State Farm General Insurance Company (\\u201cState Farm General\\u201d) \\nmoved the court to dismiss all Plaintiff\'s claims against the entities. \\nThe motion was regarded as unopposed.\\n\\nIn Bridget Butler v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, State Farm \\nGeneral Insurance Company, And State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance \\nCompany, No. 3:22-Cv-03433, United States District Court, W.D. \\nLouisiana, Lake Charles Division (June 23, 2023) a Bridget Butler whose \\nhome was damaged by two hurricanes sued three State Farm Insurance \\ncompanies when only one insured her against the risk of loss of her \\nproperty.\\n\\nINTRODUCTION\\n\\nHurricane Laura made landfall near Lake Charles, Louisiana then \\nHurricane Delta made landfall near Lake Charles, Louisiana. During the \\nrelevant time period, Plaintiff Bridget Butler owned property in Monroe,\\n Louisiana. An entity of State Farm provided a policy of insurance to \\nPlaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to timely and \\nadequately compensate Plaintiff for her substantial losses pursuant to \\nthe Policy. In turn, Plaintiff filed suit against State Farm Auto, State\\n Farm General, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (\\u201cState Farm \\nFire and Casualty\\u201d) claiming liability for damages for breach of \\ncontract plus general damages and for statutory violations and penalties\\n under Louisiana Revised Statutes.\\n\\nState Farm General and State Farm Auto moved for dismissal of the claims\\n against them. Plaintiff filed no response to the motion.\\n\\nRULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD\\n\\nRule 12(b)(6) allows for dismissal when a plaintiff \\u201cfail[s] to state a \\nclaim upon which relief can be granted.\\u201d\\n\\nLAW AND ANALYSIS\\n\\nThe Complaint alleges that the \\u201cDefendant\\u201d issued and maintained a \\nPolicy insuring Plaintiff\'s Property. The Complaint does not provide a \\nspecific policy number, and the Complaint asserts a policy number was \\nunable to be identified because \\u201cDefendant\\u201d did not comply with \\nPlaintiff\'s request for production of the policy number.\\n\\nAttached to their Motion to Dismiss State Farm General and State Farm \\nAuto put forth an insurance policy with the policy number 99-CC-X642-7, \\nand both companies assert that the attached policy is the Policy \\nreferenced in the Complaint. The attached policy is from State Farm Fire\\n and Casualty and names Plaintiff as insured and the Property as the \\nlocation of premises insured with a policy period of twelve months \\nbeginning August 25, 2020. State Farm General and State Farm Auto are \\nnot listed as parties in the attached policy. Additionally, both State \\nFarm General and State Farm Auto maintain that neither entity has issued\\n a policy to Plaintiff.\\n\\nUnder Louisiana law, no action for breach of contract may lie in the \\nabsence of privity of contract between the parties. State Farm General \\nand State Farm Auto are not parties to the attached policy, and each \\nassert it did not provide Plaintiff with any insurance coverage. \\n\\nCONCLUSION\\n\\nDefendants State Farm General Insurance Company and State Farm \\nAutomobile Insurance Company\'s Motion to Dismiss was granted.\\n\\nPlaintiff maintains claims against State Farm Fire and Casualty \\nInsurance Company.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nThere should be no excuse for a plaintiff to require the State Farm \\nentities that did not insure Ms. Butler to move the court for dismissal.\\n A telephone call from defense counsel to plaintiff\'s counsel informing \\nMs. Butler of the proper defendant and voluntarily dismiss the wrong \\nState Farm entities. The decision of the court was easy but Judge Cain \\nhas more important things to do than deal with an unnecessary motion. \\nSanctions against Plaintiff\'s attorney could have been warranted.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\n