Doukas v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Civ. No. 94-478-SD.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1995
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 94-478-SD.
• Citation: 882 F. Supp. 1197
• Parties: Susan K. DOUKAS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire

882 F. Supp. 1197

Susan K. DOUKAS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Civ. No. 94-478-SD.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire.

February 21, 1995.

Lee A. Perselay, Penacook, NH, for Susan K. Doukas.

William D. Pandolph, Sulloway & Hollis, Concord, NH, for Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

ORDER

DEVINE, Senior District Judge.

In this civil action, plaintiff Susan K. Doukas seeks relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (Supp.1994), and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631 (1977 & Supp.1994), as a result of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's (MetLife) denial of her application for mortgage disability insurance.

Presently before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's ADA claims as barred by the statute of limitations and her Fair Housing Act claim for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff objects. Also before the court is defendant's motion for leave to file a reply memorandum, which is herewith granted.

Background

Plaintiff Susan K. Doukas asserts that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder¹ in 1983. She has been under a physician's care and has taken medication for her condition since that time. Doukas further asserts that she has not been hospitalized due to bipolar disorder since 1985.

Doukas alleges that in July of 1991 she applied for mortgage disability insurance with defendant MetLife for a condominium she planned to purchase. MetLife denied her application in a letter dated July 29, 1991, which allegedly stated that MetLife's decision was "influenced" by Doukas's medical history.

Doukas reapplied for mortgage disability insurance from MetLife on or about August 25, 1992. MetLife denied Doukas's application in a letter dated September 14, 1992, again indicating that its decision was influenced by her medical history.

Discussion

1. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

When a court is presented with a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ. P., "its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, the court accepts "the factual averments contained in the complaint as true, indulging every reasonable inference helpful to the plaintiff's cause." Garita Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Ponce Fed. Bank, F.S.B., 958 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.1992). Applying this standard, the court will grant a motion to dismiss "`only if it clearly appears, according to the facts alleged, that the plaintiff cannot recover on any viable theory.'" Id. (quoting Correa-Martinez v. Arrillaga-Belendez, 903 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir.1990)).

2. The ADA Claims

The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 and was intended "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities...." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).

The term "disability" is defined by the ADA to mean,

with respect to an individual —

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).

Count I of plaintiff's complaint invokes Title III of the ADA, which establishes a prohibition against discrimination by public accommodations. Title III provides, in pertinent part, that

no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The discrimination prohibited in section 12182(a) is defined to include

the imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered....

42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i).

The applicability of Title III to insurance companies is limited by Title V of the ADA, which states, inter alia,

Subchapters I through III of this chapter Titles I through III of the Act ... shall not be construed to prohibit or restrict —

(1) an insurer, hospital or medical service company, health maintenance organization, or any agent, or entity that administers benefit plans, or similar organizations from underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on or not inconsistent with State law;

....

Paragraph (1) shall not be used as a subterfuge to evade the purposes of subchapters I and III of this chapter.

42 U.S.C. § 12201(c).

It is plaintiff's contention that MetLife violated section 12182(b)(2)(A)(i) by denying her September 1992 application for mortgage disability insurance.² Plaintiff further contends that MetLife's "actions in denying plaintiff's application for mortgage disability insurance in September 1992 are inconsistent with N.H. RSA § 417:4(VIII)"³ and "are not based on sound actuarial data and are therefore a mere subterfuge used to evade the purposes of the ADA." Complaint ¶¶ 35-36.

a. Statute of Limitations

Title III of the ADA does not contain a specific limitations period. "When Congress has not established a time limitation for a federal cause of action, the settled practice has been to adopt a local time limitation as federal law if it is not inconsistent with federal law or policy to do so." Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1942, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). This process was endorsed by Congress in 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a),

which directs the court to 1) follow federal law if federal law provides a limitations period; 2) apply the common law, as modified by state constitution or statute, if no limitations period is provided by federal law; but 3) apply state law only if it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Hickey v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 976 F.2d 980, 982 (5th Cir.1992). See also Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 47-48, 104 S.Ct. 2924, 2928-29, 82 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984) (describing the three-step process set forth in § 1988); Wilson, supra, 471 U.S. at 267, 105 S.Ct. at 1942 (same).

Federal law does not provide a limitations period in this case.⁴ Accordingly, this court's analysis begins with the selection of "the most appropriate" or "the most analogous" state statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff's claims. Wilson, supra, 471 U.S. at 268, 105 S.Ct. at 1942-43; Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 239, 109 S.Ct. 573, 576, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989). To accomplish this task, the court "must characterize the essence of the claim in the pending case, and decide which state statute provides the most appropriate limiting principle." Wilson, supra, 471 U.S. at 268, 105 S.Ct. at 1942-43.

The court finds that a claim for discrimination brought under the ADA is best characterized as a claim for personal injury. See, e.g., Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 661, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 2621, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987) (characterizing discrimination as "a fundamental injury to the individual rights of a person"); Hickey, supra, 976 F.2d at 983 ("As the Supreme Court has recognized, claims for discrimination are essentially claims for personal injury.") (citing cases). Accordingly, the most "appropriate" or "analogous" statute of limitations is one that applies to personal injury actions.

The parties have identified two statutes of limitations that could apply to plaintiff's ADA claims. Defendant contends that the most appropriate statute of limitations is the 180-day period contained in New Hampshire's "Law Against Discrimination," Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 354-A, whereas plaintiff asserts that the three-year statute of limitations set forth in RSA 508:4 is the most appropriate statute. The court examines each option in turn.

b. RSA 354-A

New Hampshire's Law Against Discrimination, like the ADA, prohibits discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation because of an individual's physical or mental disability. Compare RSA 354-A:17 with 42 U.S.C. § 12182.

RSA 354-A creates an administrative scheme to handle complaints of discrimination in employment, in places of public accommodation, and in housing accommodations. This scheme is administered by the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights.

The statute requires a "person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice to make, sign and file" a complaint with the Commission "within 180 days after the alleged act of discrimination." RSA 354-A:21, I, III. The Commission is thereafter charged with investigating the complaint, a process that is geared toward conciliation, resolution, and settlement of the dispute between the parties. RSA 354-A:21, II.

Under RSA 354-A, a complainant is not entitled to forego the administrative process and proceed directly to state court. Further, although complainant is entitled to seek judicial review of an adverse order by the Commission, that review is limited. See RSA 354-A:22 (describing judicial review and enforcement procedures). The statute further provides that "if the complainant brings an action in federal court arising out of the same claims of discrimination which formed the basis of an order or decision of the commission, such order or decision shall be vacated and any appeal therefrom pending in any state court shall be dismissed." RSA 354-A:22, V.

In Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 104 S.Ct. 2924, 82 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984), the...