Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:02-CV-404-M
April 30, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION
On March 1, 2002, Defendant State Farm County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas ("County Mutual") filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. Having considered the Motion, and noting that Plaintiffs did not file a Response, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED.
Plaintiffs initially filed this suit in state court, alleging several causes of action arising from Defendants' purported mishandling of Plaintiffs' homeowner's insurance claim. On February 26, 2002, Defendants removed this action to federal court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiffs and Defendant County Mutual are both Texas residents, Defendants alleged in their Notice of Removal that Plaintiffs fraudulently joined County Mutual to the suit in an attempt to defeat diversity jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs failed to allege any cause of action in their state court Petition against County Mutual. In County Mutual's Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment, it requests that it either be dismissed from the suit or granted summary judgment.
The Court finds that County Mutual's Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED. In cases involving claims of fraudulent joinder, the Court is to dismiss the fraudulently joined party from the suit if the removing party can establish that the plaintiff has no possibility of prevailing on its claims against the nondiverse defendant. Carriere v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 893 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir. 1990). In determining whether a plaintiff has a possibility of prevailing on his claims, the Court may employ a summary-judgment type procedure in which it looks to documentary evidence outside of the pleadings, and views all evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. Guided by these standards, the Court concludes that County Mutual has established that it was fraudulently joined, and therefore must be dismissed from this suit.
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that one or more Defendants committed violations of Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code, bad faith insurance practices, breach of contract, and negligence. None of these causes of action reference any Defendant in particular; rather, all of the claims allege that "Defendant" committed these acts. Plaintiffs' constant reference to "Defendant" instead of "Defendants" leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiffs either had one of the named Defendants in mind as having committed these wrongs, or Plaintiffs instead lumped all of the State Farm Defendants (State Farm Lloyds, State Farm Fire Casualty Company, and County Mutual) together into one mega-Defendant. Regardless of which alternative represents the reality of what happened during the drafting of the Complaint, the way in which the Complaint is written precludes the Court from discerning whether Plaintiffs intended to level their causes of action against one, some, or all of Defendants.
Even were the Plaintiffs to clarify their Complaint to allege that County Mutual is liable under all of the stated causes of action, however, County Mutual has presented unrebutted evidence demonstrating that Plaintiffs have no possibility of prevailing against County Mutual on any of their claims, as County Mutual was a complete stranger to both the insurance contract and to the handling of Plaintiffs' insurance claim. Plaintiffs cannot sustain an Article 21.21 cause of action against County Mutual, because County Mutual has presented uncontroverted evidence that it was totally uninvolved in Plaintiffs' insurance contact and claim, such that it could not have committed any violation of Article 21.21. Additionally, Plaintiffs have no valid cause of action against County Mutual for breach of contract, because Plaintiffs contacted only with State Farm Lloyds, not County Mutual, and County Mutual had no involvement in the denial of Plaintiffs' claim. Furthermore, Plaintiffs cannot sustain a bad faith cause of action against County Mutual, because the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the insurance context arises from the special relationship created by the insurance contract executed between the parties. Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695, 697-98 (Tex. 1994). Because no contractual relationship existed between Plaintiffs and County Mutual, Plaintiffs' bad faith cause of action against County Mutual is not viable. Id. at 698. Finally, Plaintiffs cannot assert a negligence cause of action against County Mutual, because the evidence shows that County Mutual, as a nonparty to the insurance contract and as a nonparticipant in the handling of Plaintiffs' insurance claim, owed no duty to Plaintiffs that has been breached.
The homeowner's insurance contract implicated in this suit was executed between Plaintiffs and State Farm Lloyds, not County Mutual. See Exh. A to County Mutual's Motion. Moreover, Andy Barefield, the team manager for State Farm Lloyds responsible for supervising Plaintiffs' homeowners policy claim, testified that County Mutual "was not involved at all in the investigation or handling of Plaintiffs' claim under their homeowners policy." See Exh. B to County Mutual's Motion.
In conclusion, none of Plaintiffs' claims survive County Mutual's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is therefore granted. County Mutual is hereby DISMISSED from the case, with all costs taxed against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are additionally ordered to submit an Amended Complaint by May 17, 2002, which clarifies which causes of actions are directed against each of the two remaining Defendants, State Farm Lloyds and State Farm Fire Casualty Company.
SO ORDERED.