Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
March 17, 2022, Decided; March 17, 2022, Filed
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 23)
Kari A. Dooley, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Great Meadow Café, LLC d/b/a River, A Waterfront Restaurant and Bar, brought this diversity action against Defendant Cincinnati Insurance Company, seeking insurance coverage for losses it sustained as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government shutdown of its business occasioned thereby, pursuant to the terms of a commercial property and casualty insurance policy issued to it by Defendant ("Policy"). In a six count Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for declaratory judgment as to the parties' respective rights and obligations under the Policy, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a et seq ("CUTPA"). Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety [*2] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant seeks dismissal on the ground that the losses Plaintiff sustained as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders do not constitute direct "accidental physical loss or accidental physical damage" to its property, as required for coverage under the Policy. In response, Plaintiff argues that the plain language of the Policy provides coverage for its losses. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Standard of review
On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court "must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Kinsey v. New York Times Co., 991 F.3d 171, 174 (2d Cir. 2021) (quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the "complaint must 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,'" setting forth "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Kolbasyuk v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., LP, 918 F.3d 236, 239 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)). "The assessment of whether a complaint's factual allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief 'does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact [*3] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal' conduct." Lynch v. City of New York, 952 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). At this stage "the court's task is to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint; it is not to assess the weight of the evidence that might be offered on either side." Id. "When deciding a motion to dismiss, a district court may consider documents attached to the complaint or incorporated by reference into the complaint[,] including an insurance policy referenced in the complaint." ENT and Allergy Associates, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co. and CAN Financial Corp., No. 3:21CV00289(SALM), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37397, 2022 WL 624628, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 3, 2022) (citing New Image Roller Dome, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 310 F. App'x 431, 432 (2d Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation mark omitted, alternation in original).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47431 *; 2022 WL 813796
GREAT MEADOW CAFE, Plaintiff, v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
physical loss, coverage, physical damage, premises, accidental, losses, orders, terms, insurance policy, pandemic, provide coverage, alteration, courts, ordinary meaning, related losses, extra expense, Restaurant, ambiguity