Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp.
| Citation | 280 F.3d 868 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-2107.,01-2107. |
| Parties | George WILES, doing business as Arcadia Valley Office Supply, Appellant, v. CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION; Brown & James, P.C.; Nixon and Company, Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Arthur G. Muegler, Jr., St. Loius, MO (Blair K. Srazic, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert W. Cockerham, St. Louis, MO (T. Michael Ward, St. Louis, MO, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
George Wiles (Wiles) appeals from a final judgment in favor of Capitol Indemnity Corporation (Capitol) in an action on a fire insurance policy. Wiles contends on appeal that the district court1 improperly dismissed parties from the suit, lacked subject matter and removal jurisdiction, and improperly denied leave to amend the complaint. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Wiles filed his original complaint seeking a declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis on July 2, 1999, alleging civil conspiracy, fraud, breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay his fire insurance claim on his Capitol policy. On August 11, 1999, the case was removed to the United States District Court in St. Louis based upon diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Diversity of citizenship existed between Wiles, a citizen of Missouri, and Capitol, a Wisconsin corporation, where the amount in controversy exceeded $6 million. Based upon fraudulent joinder, the district court on October 21, 1999, dismissed Wiles's conspiracy claim against the two non-diverse defendants, Brown & James, P.C. and Nixon and Company, Capitol's attorneys and its claims handling agency, respectively. The court concluded Wiles's conspiracy count against these two defendants failed to state a claim under Missouri law. The district court on December 13, 1999, denied Wiles's motion filed on November 12, 1999, requesting leave to amend his conspiracy claim as to the non-diverse defendants.
On January 11, 2001, the district court granted Capitol a summary judgment on Wiles's claims arising out of an alleged material breach of the insurance policy's cooperation clause. On February 23, 2001, a jury returned a verdict for Capitol on its counterclaim that Wiles had intentionally concealed material facts and circumstances concerning the fire in both his insurance claim and Capitol's subsequent investigation of the claim.
Wiles specifically argues on appeal (1) the dismissal of the two non-diverse defendants was prejudicial error and the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (2) Capitol's notice of removal was faulty and thus negated removal jurisdiction; and (3) the denial of leave to amend the complaint constituted prejudicial error.
We first address Wiles's argument regarding the dismissal of the nondiverse defendants. We review the district court's conclusions of law de novo. Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir.2001). While the court must accept allegations of fact as true when considering a motion to dismiss, the court is free to ignore legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. See Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990).
The only count relating to the nondiverse defendants was the civil conspiracy count. Missouri recognizes the general rule that there is no tort of civil conspiracy. Xavier v. Bumbarner & Hubbell Anesthesiologists, 923 S.W.2d 428, 432 (Mo.App.1996). A claim of conspiracy alone is not actionable absent an underlying tort or wrongful act. Id.; see Williams v. Mercantile Bank of St. Louis, 845 S.W.2d 78, 85 (Mo.App.1993).
We note that the Missouri Supreme Court has held "an insurance company's denial of coverage itself is actionable only as a breach of contract and, where appropriate, a claim for vexatious refusal to pay." Overcast v. Billings Mutual Ins. Co., 11 S.W.3d 62, 69 (Mo.2000) (en banc). An insured cannot recast a contract claim as a conspiracy tort under Missouri law. See Meeker v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co., 766 S.W.2d 733, 742-43 (Mo. App.1989). Thus, Wiles's allegations do not present an underlying tort or a wrongful act to support a conspiracy count under Missouri law.
In addition, under Missouri agency law generally, a principal cannot conspire with its own agents. Macke Laundry Serv., Ltd. P'ship v. Jetz Serv. Co., 931 S.W.2d 166, 176 (Mo.App.1996). Two exceptions exist to the rule when "the agent acts out of a self-interest which goes beyond the agency relationship" or when an "attorney is acting within the scope of the attorney-client relationship, under the general principles of law governing attorney liability" such that "the attorney is guilty of fraud, collusion, or a malicious or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petters Grp. Worldwide, LLC v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co. (In re Petters Co.), Court File No. 08-45257
...is free to ignore this type of allegation as it is an insufficient pleading under Twombly and Iqbal. See Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2002). The Plaintiffs did not raise the argument that the price per share was not reasonably equivalent to the shares received ......
-
17TH Street Associates v. Markel Intern. Ins. Co., CIV.A. 2:04CV681.
...diversity and alienage jurisdiction (and perhaps in the hope of recovering punitive damages). Cf. Wiles v. Capitol Indemnity Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir.2002) ("An insured cannot recast a contract claim as a conspiracy tort under Missouri law."); Linnin, 372 F.Supp.3d at ___, 2005 WL ......
-
Brown v. Kerkhoff, 4:06-cv-00342-JEG.
...amendments where insufficient evidence suggested plaintiff class could cure defects in its complaint); Wiles v. Capitol Indemnity Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir.2002) (amended pleading suffered the same defects as original pleading, rendering amendment futile); Grandson v. Univ. of Minn.......
-
In re Petters Co.
...is free to ignore this type of allegation as it is an insufficient pleading under Twombly and Iqbal. See Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp ., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir.2002).The Plaintiffs did not raise the argument that the price per share was not reasonably equivalent to the shares received u......
-
Should the Eighth Circuit recognize procedural misjoinder?
...336 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2003). (31.) Id. at 810. (32.) See id. at 811. (33.) Id. at 810. (34.) Id. (35.) Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Anderson v. Home Ins. Co., 724 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. (36.) Filla, 336 F.3d at 810. (37.) Anderson, 724 F.2d at 84.......
-
Rational pleading in the modern world of civil litigation: the lessons and public policy benefits of Twombly and Iqbal.
...unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal."); Wiles v. Capitol Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 870 (8th Cir. 2002) (reasoning that courts may ignore "unsupported conclusions" and "unwarranted inferences"); DM Research, Inc. v. Coll. of......