Berry v. Time Ins. Co

798 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (D.S.D. 2011)

 

RULE:

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the facts alleged in the complaint must be considered true and all inferences must be viewed in favor of the nonmoving party. Inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. The court must liberally construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. A court must also accept the facts alleged as true, even if they are doubtful. Thus, a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears that recovery is remote or unlikely.

FACTS:

Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim was denied because plaintiff's contentions were sufficient to move the prevention doctrine claims beyond the pleading stage; plaintiff pleaded that one defendant intentionally engaged in actions to prevent the condition precedent from being fulfilled. Defendants motioned to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

ISSUE:

Did the plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?

ANSWER:

No

CONCLUSION:

The preceding factual allegations, if true, along with the inferences drawn in favor of Berry as the nonmoving party, sufficiently state claims for relief that are plausible on their face with regard to both the breach of contract claim and the bad faith claim and, therefore, can sustain awards of punitive damages and attorney's fees. Thus, Time and Hancock's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is denied.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.