Wurzer v. New York Life Insurance Company

W.D. Missouri

Wurzer v. New York Life Insurance Company

DecidedJanuary 3, 2019

Docket4:18-cv-00866

StatusUnknown

This text of Wurzer v. New York Life Insurance Company (Wurzer v. New York Life Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wurzer v. New York Life Insurance Company, (W.D. Mo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

LORI WURZER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 18-0866-CV-W--SRB ) NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment for Failure to State a Claim. (Doc. #14). Plaintiff argues Defendant’s counterclaim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because the counterclaim is simply a reassertion of Defendant’s affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s claims, and “[d]eclaratory relief is not to be invoked where an adequate remedy already exists.” (Doc. #14, p. 3) (citing Preferred Physicians Mut. Management Group, Inc. v. Preferred Physicians Mut. Risk Retention Group, 916 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)). Defendant argues its counterclaim asks the Court to rule on the validity of a contract separate from the contracts that provide the basis for Plaintiff’s claims set forth in her Petition. Defendant identifies the contract underlying its counterclaim as “Certificate No. A8690759,” while Plaintiff identifies the contracts underlying her claims as “Policy No. AA-66, Certificate No. A8262319” and an insurance rider to that policy. (Doc. #17, p. 1; Doc. #1-1, pp. 2–3). Accordingly, Defendant’s affirmative defenses do not provide Defendant an adequate remedy as to “Certificate No. A8690759,” and Defendant’s counterclaim “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); McCaffree Fin. Corp. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 811 F.3d 998, 1002 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #14) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Stephen R. Bough STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 3, 2019

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

LORI WURZER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 18-0866-CV-W--SRB ) NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment for Failure to State a Claim. (Doc. #14). Plaintiff argues Defendant’s counterclaim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because the counterclaim is simply a reassertion of Defendant’s affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s claims, and “[d]eclaratory relief is not to be invoked where an adequate remedy already exists.” (Doc. #14, p. 3) (citing Preferred Physicians Mut. Management Group, Inc. v. Preferred Physicians Mut. Risk Retention Group, 916 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995)). Defendant argues its counterclaim asks the Court to rule on the validity of a contract separate from the contracts that provide the basis for Plaintiff’s claims set forth in her Petition. Defendant identifies the contract underlying its counterclaim as “Certificate No. A8690759,” while Plaintiff identifies the contracts underlying her claims as “Policy No. AA-66, Certificate No. A8262319” and an insurance rider to that policy. (Doc. #17, p. 1; Doc. #1-1, pp. 2–3). Accordingly, Defendant’s affirmative defenses do not provide Defendant an adequate remedy as to “Certificate No. A8690759,” and Defendant’s counterclaim “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); McCaffree Fin. Corp. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 811 F.3d 998, 1002 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #14) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Stephen R. Bough STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 3, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wurzer v. New York Life Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wurzer-v-new-york-life-insurance-company-mowd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack