Opinion
3:06-cv-0513 (WWE).
December 28, 2006
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This action arises from plaintiff Farm Family Casualty Insurance Co.'s ("FFCI") motion for a declaratory judgment of its rights and obligations to provide indemnification to defendant Scarlet Burke ("Burke") regarding claims made by the other named defendants, Ryan Boyle, ppa Matthew Boyle and Nancy Boyle, and Matthew Boyle and Nancy Boyle, individually (collectively, the "defendants"). Burke moves to dismiss the action.
BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2003, Burke was the driver of a truck involved in a motor vehicle accident in which Ryan Boyle, a minor, suffered severe multiple injuries. Defendants in the instant matter filed a lawsuit in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Fairfield (Ryan Boyle, ppa Matthew Boyle and Nancy Boyle, et al. v. Kenneth Novak, et al., Docket # FBT-CV-04-4003712-S). In that case, defendants claim, inter alia, that Ryan's injuries were caused by Burke's negligence. Defendants seek to recover damages from Burke.
At the time of the accident, Burke was the named insured under an FFCI umbrella policy and the named insured under a personal umbrella insurance policy issued by Allstate Insurance Co. ("Allstate"). FFCI claims that its liability for the claims asserted against Burke is barred by an exclusion in its policy that allegedly precludes FFCI's liability when its insured is also an insured under a personal umbrella policy. FFCI argues that it is not liable to Burke because at the time of the accident she was also covered by the Allstate personal umbrella policy. Asserting that there is an actual bona fide and substantial question regarding the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the FFCI umbrella policy, FFCI has moved this Court for a declaratory judgment that it has no obligation to Burke pursuant to its umbrella policy.
Burke counters that dismissal of this action is appropriate, asserting that the Court lacks jurisdiction over her ( Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(4)), that there was insufficiency of service of process (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5)) and that FFCI's failure to join Allstate as a party under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 ( Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7)) serves to preclude a just adjudication of plaintiffs' claims.
DISCUSSION
A motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) should be granted only if "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The function of a motion to dismiss "is merely to assess the legal feasability of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof." Geisler v. Petrocelli, 616 F.2d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 1980). In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must presume all factual allegations of the complaint to be true and must draw any reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972).
Considering the allegations set forth in the underlying complaint, the standard necessary for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is not met. The issues included in the complaint are more appropriately addressed in a motion for summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Burke's motion to dismiss [Doc. #10] is DENIED.