State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Blanton

• Decision Date: 17 December 2015
• Docket Number: C/A No. 4:13-cv-2508-RBH
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Plaintiff, v. Marshall C. Blanton and Rodney J. Allgire, Defendants. Marshall C. Blanton, Counterclaimant, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant on Counterclaim,

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Plaintiff, v. Marshall C. Blanton and Rodney J. Allgire, Defendants.

Marshall C. Blanton, Counterclaimant, v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant on Counterclaim,

C/A No. 4:13-cv-2508-RBH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

December 17, 2015

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Rodney J. Allgire on August 7, 2014 (ECF No. 57) and the Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative for Judgment on the Pleadings or Summary Judgment filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, the defendant on the counterclaims, on March 19, 2014 (ECF No. 37). A hearing was held on March 26, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.¹ Present at the hearing were Linda Gangi and Robert A. McKenzie on behalf of Plaintiff, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm")²; Joseph Sandefur on behalf of Defendant Marshall C. Blanton ("Blanton"); and James H. Moss, on behalf of Defendant Rodney J. Allgire ("Allgire").

Also before the Court are Defendant Allgire's Motion to Lift the Stay (ECF No. 113) and Motion to Amend Answer (ECF No. 120).³

State Farm filed this action on September 16, 2013 against Defendants Blanton and Allgire, seeking a declaration from the court regarding whether it had a duty to indemnify and/or a duty to defend Blanton under a homeowner's policy with liability coverage of $1,000,000 issued to Blanton on his home in Horry County. The underlying state court lawsuit, Rodney J. Allgire v. Marshall C. Blanton, c/a # 2011-CP-07-4796, involved an altercation between Defendants Blanton and Allgire at a golf course in Beaufort County, South Carolina on November 13, 2011. The underlying lawsuit filed by Allgire alleged two causes of action, one for negligence and recklessness and the other for assault and battery. State Farm defended Blanton under a reservation of rights. After a three day trial, both claims were submitted to the jury. The jury returned a general verdict on January 8, 2014 in the amount of $400,000 actual damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. See verdict form filed as an additional attachment to Allgire's motion. (ECF No. 66-1) At the time the motions hearing in the federal case was held, the state court tort case was on appeal. This Court stayed the federal action pending the disposition of the state court appeal. The South Carolina Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court judgment, and the petition for rehearing was denied. No petition for certiorari was filed, and the case was remitted to the Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas on October 26, 2015. (Def't Allgire's Mot. to Lift Stay, ECF No. 113). The Court now grants the motion to lift the stay of the federal case, with consent of all parties, and will rule on the above referenced motions in this order.Legal Standard governing motions to dismiss

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) governs motions to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The purpose of such a motion is to test the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a plaintiff's complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999).

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." While this standard "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' . . . [a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions,' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Likewise, "a complaint [will not] suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Rather, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The United States Supreme Court recently stated that

[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 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.

Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

Legal Standard for Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides, "After the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial - a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Courts follow "a fairly restrictive standard" in ruling on 12(c) motions, as "hasty or imprudent use of this summary procedureby the courts violates the policy in favor of ensuring to each litigant a full and fair hearing on the merits of his or her claim or defense." Pellegrin v. Berthelsen, No. 9:11-cv-00125, 2012 WL 10847, at *1 (D.S.C. Jan. 3, 2012) (quoting 5C Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1368 (3d ed. 2011)). A party "may not prevail on a motion for judgment on the pleadings if there are pleadings that, if proved, would permit recovery" for the non-moving party. BET Plant Servs., Inc. v. W.D. Robinson Elec. Co., 941 F. Supp. 54, 55 (D.S.C. 1996).

"[A] Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is decided under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. I.R.S., 361 Fed. App'x 527, 529 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Burbach Broad Co. v. Elkins Radio, 278 F.3d 401, 405 (4th Cir. 2002). Thus, in order to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the pleadings must contain sufficient facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In reviewing the pleadings, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true and construes the facts and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir. 2005). "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). "If, on a motion under Rule . . . 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

Legal Standard for Summary Judgment Motions

A court shall grant summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.56(a). The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is appropriate; if the movant carries its burden, then the burden shifts to the non-movant to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 23 (1986). Summary judgment is not "a disfavored procedural shortcut;" rather, it is an important mechanism for weeding out "claims and defenses [that] have no factual bases." Id. Further, "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, disposition by summary judgment is appropriate." Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586 (2009) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); see also Hill Holliday Connors Cosmopulos, Inc. v. Greenfield, 433 Fed. App'x 207, 213 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that under the facts of the case "no reasonable finder of fact would conclude" that judgment for the non-movant was appropriate).

If a movant asserts that a fact cannot be disputed, it must support that assertion either by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials;" or by "showing . . . that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

Accordingly, to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate that: (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and (2) that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As to the first of these determinations, a fact is deemed "material" if proof of its existence or non-existence would affect disposition of the case under applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if the evidence offered is such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-movant. Id. at 257. In determining whether agenuine issue has been raised, a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962).

The existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-movant's position is insufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion. Id. at 252. Likewise, conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion. Ross v. Commc'n Satellite Corp, 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir.1985). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or...