Johnson v. Allied Trust Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 25, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-06389
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JARED JOHNSON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-6389 ALLIED TRUST INSURANCE SECTION “O” COMPANY, ET AL. ORDER Before the Court is the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion1 by Defendant American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (“American Bankers”) to dismiss the breach-of-insurance-contract claims and the statutory bad-faith claims

by Plaintiffs Jason and Trina Johnson. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from damages their property allegedly sustained during Hurricane Ida.2 American Bankers is a Write- Your-Own (“WYO”) Program carrier participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”), pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (“NFIA”).3 American Bankers issued a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (“SFIP”), bearing policy number 1961526515 (the “Policy”), to Plaintiffs for their property located at 45 Derek Lane in LaPlace, Louisiana.4 After Hurricane Ida, Plaintiffs filed a claim with

American Bankers.5 On February 9, 2022, American Bankers issued a written partial denial of Plaintiffs’ claim.6 Over a year later, on August 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against American Bankers in the 40th Judicial District Court of St. John the

1 ECF No. 7. 2 ECF No. 1. 3 ECF No. 1 at 1, 3 ¶¶ 6–10. 4 ECF No. 1-2 at 4 ¶ 6. 5 Id. ¶ 12. 6 ECF No. 7-1 at 9. Baptist Parish.7 American Bankers subsequently removed this case to this Court on October 19, 2023.8 American Bankers argues that Plaintiffs’ claims should now be dismissed

because (1) Plaintiffs’ breach of breach-of-insurance-contract claim is time-barred and (2) Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims are barred by federal statutory, regulatory, and common law.9 American Bankers’ motion to dismiss was noticed for submission on January 10, 2024;10 Plaintiffs’ response was thus due on January 2, 2024. See LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.5. During a status conference with Magistrate Judge Currault, Plaintiffs

indicated that they did not file any opposition to American Bankers’ motion because they found the motion to be well-founded.11 The Court thus instructed Plaintiffs to file a short response indicting their agreement with American Bankers’ motion.12 Plaintiffs subsequently filed their response, reiterating that they did not file any opposition to American Bankers’ motion because it was “well-founded.”13 Plaintiffs also stated that they are “in agreement with the dismissal of American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida from this matter.”14

7 ECF No. 1-2 at 3. NFIA provides that a claimant on a policy issued under the Act may “institute an action” to dispute a disallowance of a claim only “within one year after the date of mailing of notice of disallowance or partial disallowance by the” WYO insurer. 42 U.S.C. § 4072. See Bateman v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., No. CV 23-6338, 2024 WL 894790, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 1, 2024) (granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and finding Plaintiff’s claims were both time-barred under the NFIA and preempted by federal law). 8 ECF No. 1. 9 American Bankers also asserts that Plaintiffs’ claim for interest is barred by the no-interest rule in Newton v. Capital Assur. Co., 245 F.3d 1306, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001). ECF No. 7-1 at 12. 10 ECF No. 7-6. 11 ECF No. 12. 12 Id. 13 ECF No. 13. 14 Id. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant American Bankers motion™ to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant American Bankers are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of September, 2024.

BRANDON S. LONG □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 ECF No. 7.