From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muller v. Reis

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 30, 2002
No. 02-1006 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 30, 2002)

Opinion

No. 02-1006

July 30, 2002


MEMORANDUM


Plaintiffs move under Fed.R. of Civ. P. 15 to amend their complaint to name State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the plaintiffs' insurer, as a defendant.

Plaintiffs allege that on September 22, 2000, at approximately 2:30 A.M., plaintiff Frank Muller was a pedestrian in the parking lot of the Inn at Plymouth Meeting, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and that defendant, highly intoxicated, was operating his motor vehicle in the lot. Plaintiff alleges that defendant negligently struck and ran over plaintiff Frank Muller with his vehicle.

In their proposed amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the insurance policy issued to them by State Farm provides under insured motorist coverage. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm has breached its contractual obligation to plaintiffs by "negligently, intentionally, wantonly, and/or without regard for the health and well-being of plaintiff Frank Muller, refusing to provide the required under insured motorist protection available," (Pl.'s Amended Compl. ¶ 19). Plaintiffs' motion does not include a copy of the policy.

Plaintiffs have invoked the wrong rule. Rule 15 is not applicable. Plaintiffs seeking to join a party to an action should proceed under Rule 20(a), which governs the permissive joinder of parties. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion will be denied.

Plaintiffs may file a Rule 20(a) motion, but must attach a copy of the insurance policy. I suspect that the policy provides for compulsory arbitration in the event of disagreement as to the amount to be paid by State Farm. If there is an arbitration clause, plaintiffs will be required to exhaust the arbitration remedy before bringing suit against State Farm. See Miller v. Allstate Insurance Company, 238 F. Supp. 565, 568 (W.D. Pa. 1965) ("to permit a lawsuit rather than arbitration under the circumstances is to affirm a frivolous sidestepping of the plain terms of the policy.")

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2002, plaintiffs' motion to amend is DENIED.


Summaries of

Muller v. Reis

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jul 30, 2002
No. 02-1006 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 30, 2002)
Case details for

Muller v. Reis

Case Details

Full title:FRANK AND PAMELA MULLER Individually, and as husband and wife v. FRANK…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 30, 2002

Citations

No. 02-1006 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 30, 2002)