Standard Insurance Co. v. Quenga
Opinion
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2
3 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, )
) CIVIL CASE NO:CV0047-13 · 4 Plaintiff, )
5 )
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER 6 )
ANTHONY D. QUENGA, MARlA A.T. )
7 WILLIAMS, MARGARET C.G. QUENGA, )
8 and CARDASIAN WILLIAMS, )
) )
9
10 ____________________________)
Defendants.
)
11 ANTHONY D. QUENGA, )
)
12 Counterclaim Plaintiff, )
)
13 vs. )
14 )
STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, )
15 ) 1G Counterclaim Defendant. )
)
17 ---------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
18 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Plaintiff's motion to 19 dismiss, filed March 13, 2013. Oral arguments were heard on July 1, 2013. Attorney Kevin J.
20 Fowler represented Plaintiff and Attorney Gary W.F. Gumataotao appeared on behalf of 21 Defendant Anthony D. Quenga. Having considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the 22 applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
23 BACKGROUND
24 On January 31, 2013, Plaintiff Standard Insurance Company filed a complaint for 25 interpleader pursuant to 7 GCA § 12114. Plaintiff alleges that the four (4) Defendants were 26 equal beneficiaries under a life insurance policy until Defendant Anthony D. Quenga became 27 the sole beneficiary one month before the policyholder's death. (Complaint, 2, Jan. 31, 2013.)
28 A petition to appoint a guardian of the policyholder was filed before her death, and Plaintiff could not determine if the policyholder was competent when she changed the beneficiaries on 2 her life insurance policy. !d. at 2-3. On this basis, Plaintiff distributed one quarter (1/4) of the 3 policy benefits to Defendant Anthony D. Quenga and filed the present interpleader to deposit 4 the remaining three quarters (3/4) of the property with the court so that Defendants may litigate 5 their several claims to the property among themselves. ld. at 2-5.
6 On February 21,2013, Defendant Anthony D. Quenga filed an answer and counterclaim 7 which alleges the same material facts of the complaint. (Answer and Counterclaim, 1-4, Feb. 8 21, 2013.) The counterclaim asserts that Plaintiff breached a contract, breached a duty to 9 promptly pay, and acted with oppression and bad faith when it failed to pay the full claim or 10 J explain its actions. ld. at 4-5. II On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim for the failure to 12 state a claim for relief pursuant to Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Defendant Anthony D. Quenga 13 argues that his counterclaim is sufficient because it alleges facts that Plaintiff has refused to 14 explain or pay the claim in bad faith. 15 DISCUSSION 16 Under Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a claim may be dismissed where it "appears beyond 17 doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him 18 to relief." Core Tech Intn 'l Corp. v. Hanil Engineering & Const. Co., Ltd, 2010 Guam 13, 52 19 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In order to dismiss a claim 20 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must review the pleading in the light most favorable to the 21 non-movant, accept its material allegations of fact as true, and resolve any doubts in favor of the 22 non-movant. First Hawaiian Bank v. Manley, 2007 Guam 2 , 9. 23 In this case, viewing the counterclaim in the light most favorable to Defendant Anthony 24 Quenga and accepting its material allegations as true, Plaintiff has failed to pay out on the 25 policy, or explain its position on the policy, despite that Plaintiff generally pays claims within 26 fifteen (15) days. (Answer and Counterclaim, 4, Feb. 21, 2013.) On this basis, the 27 counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff breached a contract, breached a duty to pay, and acted with 28 oppression and bad faith.
A complaint that is attacked under Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "need not contain detailed 2 factual allegations, (but] a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to 3 relief 'requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 4 cause of action will not do."' Core Tech, 2010 Guam 13 at ~ 52 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 5 555). Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was adopted from Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and a federal court's 6 interpretation of the analogous federal rule is persuasive authority. Guam R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 7 See also Sananap v. Cyfred, Ltd., 2011 Guam 21 ~ 24 n. 13; Pelowski v. Taitano, 2000 Guam 34 8 ~ 12. The U.S. Supreme Court holds the following regarding how substantive a pleading must 9 be to survive a Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) motion:
10 To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ... The 11 plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more 12 than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully ... But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility 13 of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'shown' - 'that the 14 pleader is entitled to relief.' Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by 15 identifying pleadings that, because they are not more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the 16 framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. 17 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) (citations omitted). 18 Pursuant to Guam R. Civ. P. 8(a), a complaint shall contain "a short and plain statement 19 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The U.S. Supreme Court expounds: 20 [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require "detailed factual 21 allegations," but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed -me accusation. A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a 22 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertions" devoid of "further factual 23 enhancement. ... a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 24 true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
25 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citations omitted).
26 The Court goes on to explain that "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
27 action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice ... Rule 8 marks a notable and
28 generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, but it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." !d.,
II
556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50 (citations omitted).
2 In this case, the counterclaims of breach and bad faith are supported by the following 3 facts: 1) Plaintiff did not pay the full a.'11ount of Defendant Anthony D. Quenga's claim; 2) 4 Plaintiff has not denied this claim or explained the delay in payment; and 3) Plaintiff generally 5 pays claims within fifteen (15) days. These facts, when taken as true, do not address how the 6 filing of a complaint for interpleader pursuant to 7 GCA § 12114 constitutes breach or bad faith 7 in delay. 8 Under Guam law, [W]henever conflicting claims are or may be made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation, or any portion thereof, 10 such person may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them l!
to interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves. The order of substitution may be made and the action of interpleader may be maintained, and 12 the applicant or plaintiff be discharged from liability to all or any of the conflicting claimants, although their titles or claims have not a common origin, or 13 are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another.
14 7 GCA § 12114 (2013).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Standard Insurance Co. v. Quenga (Standard Insurance Co. v. Quenga) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.