Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bean v. American General Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

June 30, 2017

PAMELA BEAN
v.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

         SECTION “R” (4)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Defendant American General Life Insurance Company (AIG) moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant asks the Court to dismiss plaintiff Pamela Bean's claims. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendant's motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Pamela Bean alleges that defendant is liable for breach of a life insurance policy issued to her husband, Daniel Clinton Bean, before his death.[1] In 1999, Mr. Bean entered into a life insurance contract with Old Line Life Insurance Company of America, which later merged with AIG.[2] The contract named plaintiff as the primary beneficiary.[3]

         In November 2013, defendant sent a letter to Mr. Bean informing him that his current contract was ending and providing instructions to renew his policy.[4] Neither the plaintiff nor Mr. Bean received this letter because it was mailed to an old address.[5] Mr. Bean's life insurance contract term ended on December 29, 2013.[6]

         In September 2014, defendant mailed a letter to Mr. Bean at his correct address with a reinstatement application.[7] Mr. Bean completed the application and made a timely payment to renew the policy.[8] According to the complaint, defendant received the application and applied Mr. Bean's payment to his life insurance contract account.[9] Mr. Bean died days later on October 8, 2014.[10]

         After Mr. Bean's death, defendant sent a letter to Mr. Bean's old address stating that it had reviewed the reinstatement application and was awaiting medical records from Mr. Bean's physicians.[11] The letter stated that defendant would notify Mr. Bean of its decision on whether to reinstate his policy after receipt and review of the records.[12]

         Weeks later, a company working on behalf of defendant mailed a letter to Mr. Bean requesting that he sign a medical release form.[13] Plaintiff signed and returned this form to the defendant.[14] In her return letter, plaintiff stated that it was her understanding the policy was reinstated because defendant had cashed the check included with the reinstatement application.[15]

         Months later, defendant mailed another letter to Mr. Bean's old address stating that defendant was closing the application because it had not received the requested additional information.[16] Defendant mailed the same letter the next day to the correct address.[17] Mr. Bean's doctor allegedly indicated to plaintiff that neither he nor his office ever received a medical records request from defendant.[18]

         Plaintiff asserts that she and Mr. Bean performed every act required under the contract and performed every act requested and required in the reinstatement process.[19] She further alleges that, despite timely notification of Mr. Bean's death, defendant has not settled her life insurance claim.[20]Plaintiff argues that defendant violated its contractual and statutory obligations by canceling and failing to renew the life insurance contract.[21]Plaintiff seeks damages for breach of contract in the amount of $400, 000, statutory interest, and attorney's fees.[22] Defendant now moves to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.[23]

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).

         A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the plaintiff's claim is true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. It need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must go beyond labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Id. In other words, the face of the complaint must contain enough factual matter to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal relevant evidence of each element of the plaintiff's claim. Lormand, 565 F.3d at 257. The claim must be dismissed if there are insufficient factual allegations to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is an insuperable bar to relief, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's petition for failure to state a claim for breach of contract, attorney's fees, or statutory interest.[24] Plaintiff concedes that she is not entitled to attorney's fees on her current claims under the contract or Louisiana law.[25] The Court considers the remaining arguments.

         A. Breach of Contract Claim

         Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached the life insurance contract when it failed to pay her $400, 000 following her husband's death.[26] To state a valid claim for breach of contract under Louisiana law, the plaintiff must allege: “(1) the obligor's undertaking an obligation to perform, (2) the obligor failed to perform the obligation (the breach), and (3) the failure to perform resulted in damages to the obligee.” Favrot v. Favrot, 68 So.3d 1099, 1108-09 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011).

         Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a breach of a contract. Under the provisions of Mr. Bean's life insurance contract, his insurance term ended on December 29, 2013.[27] The complaint alleges that defendant failed to renew or reinstate the life insurance contract even though plaintiff and Mr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.