Palmer Holdings & Invs., Inc. v. Integrity Ins. Co.
Citation | 505 F.Supp.3d 842 |
Decision Date | 07 December 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 4:20-cv-154-JAJ,4:20-cv-154-JAJ |
Parties | PALMER HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTEGRITY INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
James W. Carney, Nicholas J. Mauro, Carney & Appleby PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiffs.
Sean M. O'Brien, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, IA, James Gallagher, Pro Hac Vice, Gallagher, Gams, Tallan, Barnes & Littrell LLP, Columbus, OH, William Owen Krekstein, Pro Hac Vice, Timoney Knox LLP, Fort Washington, PA, for Defendants.
JOHN A. JARVEY, Chief Judge This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted filed on October 2, 2020. [Dkt. No. 20]. Plaintiffs filed a Resistance on October 26, 2020. [Dkt. No. 29]. Defendants replied to Plaintiffs’ Resistance on November 17, 2020. [Dkt. No. 35]. Plaintiffs included two affidavits in its resistance to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and Defendant filed a Motion to Strike these affidavits from Plaintiffs’ resistance on November 16, 2020. [Dkt. No. 34]. Plaintiffs filed a Resistance to the motion to strike on November 30, 2020 [Dkt. No. 36], and Defendants replied on December 7, 2020. [Dkt. No. 37]. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED .
A. Background
Plaintiffs are businesses operating and managing various restaurants in Polk County, Iowa. Pls.’ Am. Compl. [Dkt. No. 17], ¶ 3. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges they purchased Business Income and Civil Authority insurance from Defendants. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs did not attach the insurance policy to the original Complaint or Amended Complaint, but Defendants attached the policy to their Answer to Plaintiffs’ original Complaint. [Dkt. No. 5-1]. The policy is identified in the Amended Complaint and is integral to and embraced by Plaintiffs’ claims. See Zean v. Fairview Health Servs. , 858 F.3d 520, 526 (8th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Reynolds's proclamation is also integral to and embraced by Plaintiffs’ claims. As such, the Court may consider the policy and the proclamation without converting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See id. (citations omitted).
On March 17, 2020, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds issued a proclamation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In relevant part, the proclamation stated:
All Restaurants and Bars are hereby closed to the general public except that to the extent permitted by applicable law, and in accordance with any recommendations of the Iowa Department of Public Health, food and beverages may be sold if such food or beverages are promptly taken from the premises, such as on a carry-out or drive-through basis, or if the food or beverage is delivered to customers off the premises.
Office of the Governor of Iowa Kim Reynolds, Gov. Reynolds Issues a State of Public Health Disaster Emergency , iowa.gov, https://governor.iowa.gov/press-release/gov-reynolds-issues-a-state-of-public-health-disaster-emergency (Mar. 17, 2020).
Plaintiffs’ claim they are entitled to coverage under their insurance policy with Defendants. Pls.’ Am. Compl. [Dkt. No. 17], ¶ 65. Specifically, they allege they are entitled to coverage under the Business Income, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority provisions of their policy. Id. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend Defendants should be estopped from invoking the Virus Exclusion provision of the policy. Id. ¶ 80.
In relevant part, the Business Income provision states:
We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary suspension of your "operations" during the "period of restoration". The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss.
Defs.’ Ans., Affirm. Defs., & Jury Demand, Ex. 1 [Dkt. No. Dkt. No. 5-1 at 38].
The Extra Expense provision states, in relevant part:
We will pay necessary Extra Expense you incur during the "period of restoration" that you would not have incurred if there had been no direct physical loss or damage to the property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss.
The Civil Authority provision states:
The Virus Exclusion states:
The policy defines "Period of Restoration" as follows:
Id. at 63. "Property damage" is defined in Section II – Liability as including "loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured ...." Id. at 78.
The Ordinance or Law Exclusion provides:
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains several allegations that are incorporated into the final Counts. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robert E. Levy, D.M.D., LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp. Inc.
......Servs., Inc. v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 989 S.W.2d 168, 171 (Mo. 1999), to which Missouri ...) ; Kessler Dental , 505 F.Supp.3d at 480-81 ; Palmer Holdings & Investments, Inc. v. Integrity Ins. Co. , No. ......
-
Kevin Barry Fine Art Assocs. v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Case No. 20-cv-04783-SK
...... must be accepted as true .." See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc. , 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th ...Cal. Nov. 9, 2020) ; Palmer Holdings & Investments, Inc. v. Integrity Ins. Co. , 505 F. ......
-
DZ Jewelry, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London
......INS. CODE § 542.002, et seq. (Docket Entry No. 1). ...Project, Inc. v. Lincoln Prop. Co. , 920 F.3d 890, 900 (5th ... physical loss’ or ‘damage.’ "); Palmer Holdings , 505 F.Supp.3d at 856 ("[L]oss of use ...’ or ‘damage.’ "); Palmer Holdings & Invs., Inc. v. Integrity Ins. Co. , No. 4:20-CV-154, ......
-
Wakonda Club v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am.
...... for correction of errors at law." Amish Connection, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 861 N.W.2d 230, 235 (Iowa ... See also Yegge v. Integrity Mut. Ins. , 534 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Iowa 1995) (holding ...3 See, e.g. , 10012 Holdings, Inc. v. Sentinel Ins. , 21 F.4th 216, 220–23 (2d Cir. ... on restaurants imposed by a government order); Palmer Holdings & Invest., Inc. v. Integrity Ins. , 505 F. Supp. ......