Joseph Eweka v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 25-1362
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1362 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1362

JOSEPH EWEKA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02040-MSN-LRV)

Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025

Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph I. Eweka, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Spotswood de Witt, BUTLER SNOW LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1362 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Joseph I. Eweka appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint against

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Eweka filed suit in state court against his neighbors for damages caused by the

tree bordering their respective properties. Eweka then brought the instant complaint

against his and his neighbors’ insurance company, State Farm, in state court. In the

complaint, Eweka asserted that State Farm breached its fiduciary duty to him by defending

his neighbors. Eweka further claimed that State Farm is responsible for damage to his car

because the company sent a tow truck that damaged his car when responding to a service

call. Finally, Eweka claimed that State Farm refused to give him information during the

discovery process in his case against his neighbors, but did give his neighbors sensitive

personal information about him without his consent. State Farm removed the case to

federal court based on diversity and federal question jurisdiction. State Farm then filed a

motion to dismiss Eweka’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The district court granted State Farm’s motion. In dismissing Eweka’s complaint,

the district court found that under Virginia state law, a plaintiff must first obtain a judgment

against an insured tortfeasor before bringing a claim against the tortfeasor’s insurer. See

Erie Ins. Co. v. McKinley Chiropractic Ctr., P.C., 803 S.E.2d 741, 742 (Va. 2017). The

district court denied Eweka’s request for leave to amend his complaint, explaining that

amendment would be futile given the ongoing litigation against the neighbors. On appeal,

Eweka argues that the district court erred in dismissing his case with prejudice rather than

remanding the case back to the state court. Eweka concedes that he has not received a USCA4 Appeal: 25-1362 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

judgment against the neighbors, and argues that his case against the neighbors is distinct

from the instant case against State Farm.

We have reviewed Eweka’s complaint, and while his claims against the neighbors

and State Farm overlap, there are some claims that are solely asserted against State Farm.

For example, Eweka claimed that State Farm breached its fiduciary duty to him as a

customer by damaging his property and refusing to repair the damage to his car caused by

the tow truck State Farm hired, and by releasing his personal information to his neighbors

without his consent. Therefore, while the court properly dismissed some of Eweka’s claims

under the state law rule, the court failed to parse the claims asserted against State Farm

alone and determine whether those claims stated valid claims.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion. * We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the court and

argument will not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

* We express no opinion regarding the merits of any claims asserted solely against State Farm.