Cooper v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 2021
• Docket Number: 2:20-cv-6542
• Parties: KITTY M. COOPER, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

KITTY M. COOPER, Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., et al., Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-6542

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

November 15, 2021

Kimberly A. Jolson, Magistrate Judge.

OPINION AND ORDER

SARAH D. MORRISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter is currently before the Court on the Motion of Defendants Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and/or Liberty Insurance Corporation (collectively “Liberty”) for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff Kitty Cooper responded to that motion (ECF No. 21) and the Defendants replied. (ECF No. 22). The Motion is ripe for consideration.

I. Factual Background

The following draws from the allegations in the Complaint, which are considered as true for purposes of the pending motion. See Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623, 639-40 (6th Cir. 2016).

Ms. Cooper is the owner of real estate and a dwelling located at 2644 True Hollow Road in Chillicothe (the “Property”). (ECF No. 3, Compl., ¶ 8). Unfortunately, there was a fire “in or on the dwelling” on June 29, 2019, causing damage to the dwelling and to Ms. Cooper's personal property located there. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10).

1

At the time of the fire, Ms. Cooper had a homeowner's insurance policy issued by Liberty. (Id., ¶ 12). Ms. Cooper does not have a complete copy of the policy, so she was unable to attach a copy to her Complaint. (Id.) Liberty subsequently filed a complete copy of the policy.^[1] (ECF No. 9).

Ms. Cooper avers that she has complied with all of the terms of the policy and provided notice of the fire to Liberty the day after the fire. (ECF No. 3, Compl., ¶¶ 16, 18). Liberty investigated her claim, then refused to issue payment to Ms. Cooper for her damages and losses suffered from the fire. (Id., ¶¶ 28, 29).

II. Procedural Background

Ms. Cooper filed this action on November 19, 2020, in the Court of Common Pleas of Ross County. Ms. Cooper named Liberty and five John Does as defendants. (ECF No. 3). She asserted claims for breach of contract, bad faith, unfair and deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, trespass to chattels, conversion, and civil theft. Id.

Liberty removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) on the grounds that there is complete diversity of citizenship; Ms. Cooper is a citizen of Ohio, Liberty is incorporated in and maintains its principal place of business in

2

Massachusetts, ^[2] and the amount in controversy is more than $75, 000 exclusive of costs and interest. (ECF No. 1). Liberty then filed an Answer and asserted a Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 5). Ms. Cooper Answered Liberty's Counterclaim. (ECF No. 7). The instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings followed.

II. Standard of Review

A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is analyzed in the same manner as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 434, 438 (6th Cir. 2007). To overcome such a motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must include more than labels, conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted when there is no material issue of fact and the moving

3

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, LLC, 539 F.3d 545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008).

III. Analysis

A. Breach of Contract Claim

The Court begins with a review of the rules of insurance policy interpretation. Under Ohio law, ^[3] insurance contracts are construed like any other written contract. Scott v. Allstate Indem. Co., 417 F.Supp.2d 929, 932 (N.D. Ohio 2006). “The court's...