United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
insurance coverage dispute is before the Court on defendant
GEICO Casualty Company's motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) and
plaintiff Steven Raymond's motion to dismiss Count III
(Doc. 20). GEICO argues that Mr. Raymond cannot pursue his
claims for breach of his uninsured motorist policy because
Mr. Raymond did not comply with the requirements of the
policy. (Doc. 16, pp. 1-2). Mr. Raymond asks the Court to
dismiss his claim for bad faith without prejudice. (Doc. 20,
p. 1). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant
GEICO's motion and deny Mr. Raymond's motion as moot.
12(b)(6) enables a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint
for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Pursuant to Rule
8(a)(2), a complaint must contain, “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Generally, to
survive a [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss and meet the
requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), a complaint need not
contain ‘detailed factual allegations, ' but rather
‘only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Maledy v. City of
Enterprise, 2012 WL 1028176, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 26,
2012) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 570 (2007)). “Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
Court must “accept the allegations in the complaint
as true and constru[e] them in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff.” Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin,
P.A., 791 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003)
(internal marks omitted). The Court may consider as
“part of the complaint for Rule 12(b)(6)
purposes” exhibits that Mr. Raymond attached to his
complaint. Miljkovic, 791 F.3d at 1297 n.4 (citing
Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231
(11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c)). The
Court also may consider the GEICO policy that GEICO attached
to its motion to dismiss because the policy is central to Mr.
Raymond's claim, and the policy's contents are not in
dispute. See Lockwood v. Beasley, 211 Fed.Appx. 873,
877 (11th Cir. 2006); Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue
Shield of Florida, Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir.
1997) (“[W]here the plaintiff refers to certain
documents in the complaint and those documents are central to
the plaintiff's claim, then the Court may consider the
documents part of the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal, and the defendant's attaching such documents
to the motion to dismiss will not require conversion of the
motion into a motion for summary judgment.”).
second amended complaint, Mr. Raymond alleges that on August
7, 2014, he was standing in the bed of his truck attempting
to move a piece of furniture when an unknown flatbed truck
struck the bumper of his truck. (Doc. 15, ¶ 8). The
collision caused Mr. Raymond to fall from the bed of his
truck and suffer serious injury. (Doc. 15, ¶¶ 8,
11). A bystander at the scene of the accident contacted
emergency responders who transported Mr. Raymond to the
hospital. (Doc. 15, ¶ 10). “[N]o police report was
made detailing the accident.” (Doc. 15, ¶ 9).
June 6, 2014, to September 23, 2014, GEICO insured Mr.
Raymond through automobile insurance policy number
4331-77-92-33. (Doc. 16-1, p. 3; Doc. 15, ¶ 14; Doc.
15-1, p. 5). This policy included uninsured motorist
coverage. (Doc. 15, ¶ 14; Doc. 16-1, p. 3).
January 4, 2015, Mr. Raymond learned from a television
program that he might have a cause of action for damages
against the driver of the unidentified flatbed truck and
contacted counsel. (Doc. 15, ¶ 12). On February 24,
2015, Mr. Raymond, through counsel, notified GEICO of the
accident. (Doc. 15, ¶¶ 13, 24). GEICO denied Mr.
Raymond's claim. (Doc. 15, ¶¶ 15-24).
lawsuit followed. Mr. Raymond asserts claims against GEICO
under his auto insurance policy for uninsured/underinsured
motorist coverage and breach of contract. (Doc. 15, pp.
7-10). Mr. Raymond also asserts a bad faith tort claim
against GEICO. (Doc. 15, pp. 10-13). GEICO asks the Court to
dismiss Mr. Raymond's claims with prejudice because Mr.
Raymond did not report the August 2014 accident to police
within twenty-four hours and did not report the accident to
GEICO within thirty days as required by Mr. Raymond's
insurance policy. (Doc. 16, pp. 1-2).
the title “LOSSES WE PAY, ” Mr. Raymond's
GEICO insurance policy provides, in relevant part:
Under the Uninsured Motorists Coverage [GEICO] will pay
damages for bodily injury caused by
accident which the insured is
legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an
uninsured auto or
hit-and-run auto arising out of the
ownership, maintenance or use of that auto.
(Doc. 16-1, p. 14) (emphasis in policy). The policy defines
“Hit-and-run auto” this way:
“Hit-and-run auto” is a
motor vehicle causing bodily injury
to an insured through physical
contact with him or with an auto he is
occupying at the time of the
accident and whose operator or owner cannot be ...