Patrick McMahon v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al.

N.D. California

Patrick McMahon v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al.

DecidedOctober 23, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-05121

StatusUnknown

This text of Patrick McMahon v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al. (Patrick McMahon v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patrick McMahon v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATRICK MCMAHON, Case No. 25-cv-05121-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GEICO’S MOTION TO DISMISS 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 15 10 HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On July 8, 2025, Defendant Geico Insurance (“Geico”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the 14 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Patrick McMahon. Dkt. No. 15. The Court finds the matter 15 appropriate for disposition without oral argument and deems it submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 The Court GRANTS the motion. 17 Plaintiff filed this complaint in San Mateo Superior Court on May 15, 2025, seeking to 18 recover damages arising out of alleged contractual breaches by his insurers. Dkt. No. 1-2. 19 Defendants removed. Dkt. No. 1-1. Geico filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that it was not a 20 party to Plaintiff’s home insurance contract, and “at most,” that it merely served as “an agent 21 selling the [insurance] policy.” Dkt. No. 15 at 6. And because it served only as an insurance 22 agent, Geico argues that, under binding Ninth Circuit precedent, it cannot be held liable for 23 Plaintiff’s breach of contract, failure or delay in payment, or bad faith claims arising under his 24 insurance policy. Id. at 11–13l see also Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 981 (9th 25 Cir. 1999) (dismissing defendant acting as insurance agent from the case because it was not a 26 party to the insurance contract). And because Plaintiff’s remaining claims against it are derivative 27 of those claims, Geico argues those must be dismissed as well. Dkt No. 15 at 13–17. 1 2025, Plaintiff submitted a statement that he “now accepts that [Geico] was acting as an insurance 2 || agent, not as an insurer, and is not a party to the insurance contract to which this case pertains.” 3 Dkt. No. 26 at 2. Plaintiff concedes that because Geico served as an insurance agent and not an 4 insurer, as a matter of law, it cannot be held liable under the contract at issue. Jd.. In response to 5 || the Court’s October 21, 2025 order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition 6 || pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(b) requesting that the Court grant Geico’s motion with respect to Geico 7 || only. Dkt. No. 28 at 1-2. 8 The Court finds that because it is undisputed that Geico served as an insurance agent and is 9 not party to the insurance policy at issue, as a matter of law, Geico cannot be held liable on 10 Plaintiff's claims. Ensley, 174 F.3d at 981. The Court therefore GRANTS Geico’s motion to 11 dismiss, Dkt. No. 15, and DISMISSES Defendant Geico from the case. The Court also 12 || TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff's administrative motion requesting permission to appear 5 13 || remotely, Dkt. No. 25, as well as Plaintiff's motion seeking leave of the Court to file a late 14 response to the October 10 order to show cause, Dkt. No. 24. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: 10/23/2025

8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATRICK MCMAHON, Case No. 25-cv-05121-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GEICO’S MOTION TO DISMISS 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 15 10 HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On July 8, 2025, Defendant Geico Insurance (“Geico”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the 14 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Patrick McMahon. Dkt. No. 15. The Court finds the matter 15 appropriate for disposition without oral argument and deems it submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 16 The Court GRANTS the motion. 17 Plaintiff filed this complaint in San Mateo Superior Court on May 15, 2025, seeking to 18 recover damages arising out of alleged contractual breaches by his insurers. Dkt. No. 1-2. 19 Defendants removed. Dkt. No. 1-1. Geico filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that it was not a 20 party to Plaintiff’s home insurance contract, and “at most,” that it merely served as “an agent 21 selling the [insurance] policy.” Dkt. No. 15 at 6. And because it served only as an insurance 22 agent, Geico argues that, under binding Ninth Circuit precedent, it cannot be held liable for 23 Plaintiff’s breach of contract, failure or delay in payment, or bad faith claims arising under his 24 insurance policy. Id. at 11–13l see also Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 981 (9th 25 Cir. 1999) (dismissing defendant acting as insurance agent from the case because it was not a 26 party to the insurance contract). And because Plaintiff’s remaining claims against it are derivative 27 of those claims, Geico argues those must be dismissed as well. Dkt No. 15 at 13–17. 1 2025, Plaintiff submitted a statement that he “now accepts that [Geico] was acting as an insurance 2 || agent, not as an insurer, and is not a party to the insurance contract to which this case pertains.” 3 Dkt. No. 26 at 2. Plaintiff concedes that because Geico served as an insurance agent and not an 4 insurer, as a matter of law, it cannot be held liable under the contract at issue. Jd.. In response to 5 || the Court’s October 21, 2025 order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a statement of non-opposition 6 || pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(b) requesting that the Court grant Geico’s motion with respect to Geico 7 || only. Dkt. No. 28 at 1-2. 8 The Court finds that because it is undisputed that Geico served as an insurance agent and is 9 not party to the insurance policy at issue, as a matter of law, Geico cannot be held liable on 10 Plaintiff's claims. Ensley, 174 F.3d at 981. The Court therefore GRANTS Geico’s motion to 11 dismiss, Dkt. No. 15, and DISMISSES Defendant Geico from the case. The Court also 12 || TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff's administrative motion requesting permission to appear 5 13 || remotely, Dkt. No. 25, as well as Plaintiff's motion seeking leave of the Court to file a late 14 response to the October 10 order to show cause, Dkt. No. 24. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: 10/23/2025

8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2511, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3292 Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Donald Joe Ensley, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant v. Laura L. Ensley, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, and Kevin Burke Burke Group, Counter-Defendants-Appellees

174 F.3d 977 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Patrick McMahon v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-mcmahon-v-homesite-insurance-company-of-the-midwest-et-al-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack