Neidenbach v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:13-CV-1604 CAS,4:13-CV-1604 CAS |
| Citation | 161 F.Supp.3d 731 |
| Parties | Dale Neidenbach, et al., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant/Counter-Claimant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
David C. Knieriem, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants.
Robert W. Cockerham, Cockerham & Associates, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, for Defendant/Counter-Claimant.
This matter is before the Court on defendant's second motion for summary judgment. In a Memorandum and Order dated March 10, 2015, the Court granted defendant Amica Mutual Insurance Company (“Amica”) summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims against it. Amica now moves that the Court enter summary judgment in its favor with regard to its counterclaim. The Neidenbachs oppose the motion, which is fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the following reasons, Amica's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Dale and Kim Neidenbach allege in their first amended complaint that on or about October 10, 2012, a fire started on their property, and they sustained damage amounting to the total loss of their home and personal belongings. They claim that Amica had issued them an insurance policy covering this damage, which was in full force and effect at the time. They also claim that they satisfied all conditions precedent under the policy.
Amica filed an answer in response to the amended complaint, in which it asserted a number of affirmative defenses and a counterclaim against plaintiffs. In its counterclaim, Amica requests, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Court declare the Neidenbachs are barred from recovery and there is no coverage under the policy at issue. It alleges that the Neidenbachs intentionally destroyed their property, committed fraud and breached the policy. As a result of their conduct, Amica also alleges in its Counterclaim that it is entitled to recover from the Neidenbachs all amounts the company paid by reason of the insurance claim, including advance payments to the Neidenbachs, payments to a mortgagee, amounts paid in the adjustment and investigation of the claim, and attorney's fees. Amica asks the Court to:
(1) determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the Policy and enter a judgment construing the Policy, including the applicable coverage provisions, exclusions, and conditions thereunder, in favor of Amica; (2) declare that Amica is entitled to recover the total amount of said advance payments and additional living expenses, the amount of any payment to a mortgage holder, and the amount of expenses incurred in investigation, adjustment, and evaluation of the claim, including reasonable attorney's fees; and (3) for any and all further relief that the Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances. Doc. 19 at 22.
In late 2014, Amica moved that the Court enter summary judgment in its favor as to plaintiffs' claims against the company, a motion that the Neidenbachs opposed. Amica argued in its motion for summary judgment that the Neidenbachs were barred from recovering under the policy due to a number of material misrepresentations they made during the claims process. More specifically, Amica argued that the amount plaintiffs claimed in their proof of loss differed dramatically from the amount they valued their personal property in connection with a bankruptcy petition they filed just one year prior to the fire. Amica also argued that the Neidenbachs failed to inform Amica about the existence of financial documents and other property items that they had moved to two storage units following the fire. Amica further argued that the Neidenbachs concealed their involvement in the demolition of their home and the removal of their underground swimming pool before Amica had completed its investigation. Finally, the company argued that the Neidenbachs failed to cooperate in Amica's investigation and filed suit prematurely, before Amica had made any coverage decision.
In a Memorandum and Order dated March 10, 2015, the Court granted Amica's motion for summary judgment. The Court found the undisputed facts established that plaintiffs knowingly or willingly concealed material facts relating to the insurance policy at issue in this case. More specifically, the Court found:
there is a huge discrepancy between the amount plaintiffs claimed for lost personal property in their Proof of Loss and what they listed in their bankruptcy petition, which cannot be explained as simply a difference in methods of calculation. Furthermore, plaintiffs' contention that they merely claimed the policy limits is not supported by the record. Finding there is no other reasonable explanation for the great discrepancy between the Proof of Loss and the bankruptcy petition, the Court finds Amica is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiffs knowingly or willing concealed or misrepresented to Amica the nature and value of their personal property, which amounted to material misrepresentations that voided the Policy.
Doc. 58 at 16-7. Consequently, under the terms of the policy at issue, the Court found that there was no coverage. Having determined that there was no coverage under the policy at issue because the Neidenbachs misrepresented the value of their personal property, the Court declined to address Amica's alternative arguments for voiding the policy.
In the Memorandum and Order, the Court noted that there was a pending counterclaim, but that the summary judgment motion did not raise issues related to the counterclaim. For example, there was no evidence before the Court as to how much Amica had paid to the Neidenbachs under the policy. However, “[i]n light of the fact that the Court has determined that there is no coverage under the Policy, the Court will vacate the trial date in this case, and order the parties to brief the issue as to what relief Amica is entitled under its counterclaim.” Doc. 58 at 17. This is what is at issue presently before the Court.
In its Second Motion for Summary Judgment, Amica asks the Court to declare that it is entitled to recover the amount of advance payments and living expenses it made to and on behalf of the Neidenbachs, and the expenses it incurred in its investigation, adjustment, and evaluation of the Neidenbachs' claim. Amica also requests that the Court award it attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. Amica further requests that the Court hold that it should indemnified from any claim by a mortgagee of the property.
The Eighth Circuit has articulated the appropriate standard for consideration of motions for summary judgment, as follows:
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and must identify those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If the movant does so, the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge. The nonmovant must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, and must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.
Torgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1043 (8th Cir.2011) (en banc) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Although the burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact rests on the movant, a nonmovant may not rest upon mere denials or allegations, but must instead set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial.” Wingate v. Gage Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 34, 528 F.3d 1074, 1078–79 (8th Cir.2008) (cited case omitted).
With this standard in mind, the Court accepts the following facts as true for purposes of resolving Amica's Second Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dale and Kim Neidenbach were named insureds on a homeowners insurance policy issued by Amica, Policy number 630524-20HX (“the Policy”), dated May 8, 2012 through May 8, 2013. On October 10, 2012, a fire occurred at the Neidenbachs' residence, located at 991 Decker Road, Labadie, Missouri 63055. The Neidenbachs claimed the October 2012 fire caused damage to their dwelling and their personal property. The Neidenbachs submitted an insurance claim to Amica seeking $375,000 in alleged damage to the dwelling and garage and submitted an inventory alleging $262,500 in damage to personal property items.
Amica responded to the report loss and advanced sums to and on behalf of the Neidenbachs. Following the fire, Amica advanced to the Neidenbachs a Pre-paid Visa Card containing $10,000.00, and a check for $5,000.00 (Amica Check No. 4270558), both for emergency expenses. Amica retained The Wrecking Crew to obtain a competitive bid for debris removal on behalf of the Neidenbachs, paying $150.00. Amica sent the Neidenbachs and their mortgagee a check for $6,350.00 (Amica Check No. 4441094) for debris removal. Dale Neidenbach attests in an affidavit that he did not deposit or cash this check. It is undisputed that this check has not been cashed. Amica...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CM Vantage Specialty Ins. Co. v. Nephrite Fund 1, LLC
...cases involving insurance claims, the courts in this district have reached different conclusions. See Neidenbach v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 161 F. Supp. 3d 731, 739-40 (E.D. Mo. 2016) ("[T]here is a split within this district on the issue of fees."). "Some judges have awarded fees, finding mis......