United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that American Modern Home Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. #17) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss filed by defendant, American Modern Home Insurance Company. American Modern argues that this suit should be dismissed because plaintiff, Kirsten D'Juve, does not have standing to pursue a claim against it as she is not a thirdparty beneficiary under the homeowner's insurance policy that her mortgagee, Residential Credit Solutions, procured for the property after D'Juve failed to supply satisfactory proof of insurance.
D'Juve filed this action against American Modern, alleging that she procured a homeowner's insurance policy from American Modern covering her home in Ponchatoula, Louisiana, and that American Modern breached that contract by failing to pay her claim when the home sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Isaac in August 2012. American Modern filed a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiff's complaint was deficient because the insurance policy was actually procured by her mortgagee, Residential, with whom American Modern adjusted the claim for Hurricane Isaac damages to D'Juve's property. American Modern also claimed that D'Juve failed to allege that she was a third-party beneficiary of that policy. Plaintiff admitted to the pleading deficiency. This court granted American Modern's motion to dismiss, and granted D'Juve leave to file an amended complaint.
On December 23, 2014, D'Juve filed an amended complaint in which she alleged that she "was an expressly intended beneficiary" under the policy because "the policy stipulates a manifestly clear intent to provide [her] any benefits in excess of Residential Credit Solutions' interest in [her] property." She alleged that on August 29, 2012, her property sustained wind and rain damage as a result of Hurricane Isaac, and that such damage was covered by the American Modern policy. D'Juve further alleges that American Modern failed to properly adjust her damages, and that she and/or Residential are owed additional money under the policy.
American Modern filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint arguing D'Juve is not a third-party beneficiary under the American Modern policy because she owed more on her mortgage when the suit was filed on August 29, 2014 ($91, 575.71 as of August 4, 2014) than the coverage limits of the policy ($65, 065 in dwelling coverage and $6, 506 in coverage for other structures). American Modern attached to its motion to dismiss documents evidencing the amount of money D'Juve owes on her mortgage. Because these documents are not referred to in the pleadings, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, D'Juve was given an opportunity to present countervailing evidence. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d). In response, D'Juve argued that her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding reduced the amount of money she owes on her mortgage to an amount below the policy limits.
A. Legal Standard
1. Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
"Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001). "Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be found in any one of three instances: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts." Id. In a 12(b)(1) motion, the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exists. Id.
American Modern moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) arguing that D'Juve lacks standing to pursue the claim. However, by arguing that D'Juve is not an insured under the policy, American Modern has attacked the merits of her claim. "[W]here issues of fact are central to both subject matter jurisdiction and the claim on the merits [it has been] held that the trial court must assume jurisdiction and proceed to the merits." Montz v. Dep't of Navy, 392 F.3d 147, 150 (5th Cir. 2004). Specifically, "[i]n circumstances where the defendant's challenge to the court's jurisdiction is also a challenge to the existence of a federal cause of action, the proper course of action for the district court... is to find that jurisdiction exists and deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiff's case under either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56." Id. (quotations omitted).
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face must be pleaded. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 & 1973 n. 14 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face when the plaintiff pleads facts from which the court can "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Bell Atl., 127 S.Ct. at 1965. The court "must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." In re S. Scrap Material Co., LLC, 541 F.3d 584, 587 (5th Cir. 2008).
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a district court may consider only the contents of the pleading and the attachments thereto. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)). "Documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to her claim." Id. at 498-99 (internal citations omitted). However, if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary ...