United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is defendant Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America's (hereinafter "defendant") motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 4). Plaintiff Pacific Enterprises, LLC (hereinafter "plaintiff") filed a response, (doc. # 11), and defendant filed a reply, (doc. # 13).
Plaintiff is a limited liability company registered in Nevada. (Doc. # 1). Its registered agent and sole officer resides in Nevada. (Doc. # 1). Defendant Travelers is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Connecticut. (Doc. # 1).
Defendant Travelers issued an insurance policy to plaintiff with effective dates of October 20, 2011, to October 20, 2012. Plaintiff's policy has a businessowner's property coverage limit of $1, 485, 811. (Doc. # 1).
The policy provides: "We cover loss or damage you sustain through acts committed or events occurring... [d]uring the policy period shown in the Declarations." (Doc. # 4-1). Upon expiration of the policy period, plaintiff did not renew its policy with defendant Travelers. (Doc. # 1-1).
Plaintiff also purchased an insurance policy from defendant AMCO Insurance Company ("AMCO"). (Doc. # 1-1). AMCO is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Iowa. (Doc. # 1). This policy had the same effective dates of October 20, 2011, to October 20, 2012. (Doc. # 1-1).
On or about November 7, 2012, plaintiff evicted its tenant from the insured location. At that time, plaintiff discovered that the tenant had stolen property from and damaged the insured location over a period of time. Plaintiff then made an insurance claim with defendant Travelers under its policy. (Doc. # 1-1).
Plaintiff provided defendant Travelers with bids for repairs in the amounts of $231, 246 for HVAC damage, $57, 111 for plumbing damage, and $87, 985 for electrical damage. (Doc. # 10). Defendant Travelers ultimately denied coverage for the claim because the loss was not discovered until after the policy period expired. (Doc. # 1-1).
Plaintiff then filed suit in Nevada state court against defendant Travelers and AMCO, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Unfair Claims Practices Act. (Doc. # 1-1). Defendant Travelers then removed the case to this court on diversity grounds. (Doc. # 1).
II. Legal Standard
A court may dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide "[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands "more than labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).
"Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).
In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the ...