Mazzoni v. Travelers Home & Mut. Ins. Co.

CAREY MAZZONI, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS HOME and MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-2169

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

February 13, 2020

(JUDGE MANNION)

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is a motion to dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) filed by the defendant The Travelers Home and Mutual Insurance Company ("Travelers"). (Doc. 3). The defendant seeks to dismiss as time-barred a breach of insurance contract claim and a statutory bad faith claim brought by the plaintiff, Carey Mazzoni, who was insured under a Homeowners insurance policy with Travelers. Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion will be GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND¹

This case arises out of an October 20, 2015 incident that occurred at the residence of plaintiff and Tara Mazzoni located at 67 Grandview Avenue,Dallas, Pennsylvania. (See Doc. 1-1, complaint). The plaintiff alleges that her property "suffered water and mold damage as a result of a cracked drain pipe connector" and sustained damages to her home that were in excess of $60,000.00. The plaintiff's property was insured by a Homeowners policy with Travelers, policy no. 991611121-633-1, at the time of the damage caused by the cracked pipe. Specifically, the policy period was from August 2, 2015 to August 2, 2016. (See Doc. 1-1, Ex. B, insurance policy). Travelers is an insurance corporation incorporated in Connecticut and authorized to do business in Pennsylvania.²

Plaintiff submitted a claim to Travelers for the damage loss her property sustained from the cracked pipe. Travelers denied plaintiff's claim and sent her a letter denying coverage on November 3, 2015. (See Doc. 4-2). Travelers' letter denying plaintiff's claims stated in part:

You presented a claim for your floor rotted out and extensive black mold. We inspected the damages with Ms. Mazzoni on 11/03/2015. Our research found that the drain pipe connector from the toilet had cracked and leaked for an extended period of time. Specifically this leak had been going on for a period of time more than 14 days per our conversation and the findings by your contractor. The constant and repeated exposure to water from this leak, caused the flooring to rot and mold to form. In order for there to be coverage for mold/rot, it must be caused by a peril that is insured against. Since wear/tear, deterioration, continuous and repeated seepage of water for a period of more than 14 days is excluded, your policy does not provide coverage.

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that Travelers has "wrongfully withheld payment pursuant to the terms and conditions of the [Homeowners] insurance contract without reasonable basis." Further, plaintiff alleges that the "denial of payment" by Travelers was with "reckless disregard to the fact that such denial was without a reasonable basis" in violation of the Pennsylvania bad faith statute of 42 Pa.C.S. §8371.

On September 20, 2019, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, asserting two counts against Travelers, breach of contract (Count I) and bad faith in violation of 42 Pa.C.S. §8371, Pennsylvania's bad faith statute (Count II). (Doc. 1-1, complaint). On December 19, 2019, Travelers removed the case to this federal court. (Doc. 1). On December 23, 2019, Travelers filed the instant motion to dismiss both Counts of the complaint, along with a brief in support. (Docs. 3 & 4). Travelers' motion seeks to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of contract claim based on a two-year limitations clause for filing suit under the policy. Travelers also moves to dismiss plaintiff's bad faith claim based on the two-year statute of limitations applicable to an action under §8371. Plaintiff filed her brief in opposition to the motion on January 27, 2020, which wasuntimely by 36 days.³ (Doc. 17). Travelers filed a reply brief on February 10, 2020. (Doc. 21). The motion is now ripe for review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The defendant's motion to dismiss is brought pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). This rule provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated, Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005), and dismissal is appropriate only if, accepting all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true, the plaintiff has failed to plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (abrogating "no set of facts" language found in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The facts alleged must be sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. This requirement "calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" of necessary elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. Id. at 556. Furthermore, in order to satisfy federal pleading requirements, the plaintiffmust "provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief," which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, S31 (3d Cir. 2008) (brackets and quotations marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court generally relies on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007). The court may also consider "undisputedly authentic document[s] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] documents." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Moreover, "documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered." Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002). However, the court may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to dismiss. See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).

Lastly, the court should grant leave to amend a complaint before dismissing it as merely deficient. See, e.g., Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir. 2007); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir. 2000). "Dismissal without leave to amend is justifiedonly on the grounds of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility." Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir. 2004).

III. DISCUSSION

1. Count I, Breach of Contract Claim

Travelers' motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiff's breach of contract claim is time-barred is based on a limitations period provided for in the plaintiff's policy. Plaintiff contends that it is premature for the court to consider Travelers' statute of limitations defense by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and that such a defense should be asserted after discovery in a Rule 56 summary judgment motion. Plaintiff also contends that the court should not consider any exhibits submitted by Travelers which are outside of the pleadings at this stage.

However, since the court finds that the face of the complaint conclusively establishes that plaintiff knew or should have known of her claim at the date of her property damage, Travelers can raise the statute of limitations defense in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir. 2002) (Third Circuit held that a statute of limitations defense may only be raised in a 12(b) motion "if the time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations") (citation omitted). Thus, "[i]f the bar is not apparent on the face of the complaint, then it may not afford the basis for a dismissal of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)." Id.

Since the court finds that it is clear from the face of plaintiff's complaint that her breach of contract claim is time-barred, it will now consider Travelers' motion to dismiss Count I.

Plaintiff's policy with Travelers includes the following provision:

9. Suit Against Us. No action can be brought against us unless there has been full compliance with all the terms under Section I of this policy and the action is started within two years after the date of loss.

(See Policy, Doc. 1-1, Ex. B, at p. 31, SECTION 1-CONDITIONS).⁴ The court agrees that this suit limitation provision is controlling.

There is no dispute that Pennsylvania law governs this action. "Under Pennsylvania law, an insurance contract is governed by the law of the state in which the contract was made." Meyer v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc'y, 648 F.3d 154, 162 (3d Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has set forthclearly established rules for the interpretation of insurance contracts, generally.

The task of interpreting an insurance contract is generally performed by a court rather than by a jury. The purpose of that task is to ascertain the intent of the parties as manifested by the terms used in the written insurance policy. When the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, a court is required to give effect to that language. When a provision in a policy is ambiguous, however, the policy is to be construed in favor of the insured . . . . Contractual language is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different constructions and capable of being understood in more than one sense. Finally, in determining what the parties intended by their contract, the law must look to what they clearly expressed. Courts in interpreting a contract, do not assume that its language was chosen

...