United States District Court, D. Nebraska
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff,
GREATER OMAHA PACKING COMPANY, INC., a Nebraska corporation, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss (filing 16) filed by defendant Greater Omaha Packing Company ("GOPAC"). For the reasons discussed below, GOPAC's motion will be granted in part, and Continental will be ordered to show cause why the remainder of its complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lack of an issue ripe for judicial review.
At all times relevant to this lawsuit, GOPAC was a Nebraska corporation and supplier of raw beef based in Omaha, Nebraska, and Continental was an Illinois corporation based in Chicago. Filing 1 at ¶¶ 13-14, 18. In 2009, Continental was GOPAC's commercial umbrella insurer. Filing 1 at ¶ 1. Under its policy with GOPAC ("the Policy"), Continental agreed to defend and indemnify GOPAC against certain claims for "bodily injury" and "property damage." See filing 1 at ¶¶ 24-30; filing 1-2 at 8, 21-22.
In October 2009, GOPAC was implicated in an E. coli outbreak in New England, and GOPAC was named in multiple tort lawsuits. Filing 1 at ¶ 2. In October 2011, Continental assumed GOPAC's defense from GOPAC's primary insurer. Since then, Continental has defended GOPAC in several lawsuits related to the New England outbreak. To date, Continental spent significant sums defending GOPAC. Filing 1 at ¶ 3. Continental has also paid approximately $3.5 million in defense fees, settlements, and prejudgment interest for GOPAC's indemnitee, Fairbank Reconstruction Corporation d/b/a Fairbank Farms ("Fairbank"), a processor and seller of ground beef, after a federal jury sitting in Maine found that GOPAC delivered raw sirloin trim contaminated with E. coli to Fairbank. Filing 1 at ¶ 4. Continental (along with another insurer of GOPAC) has also indemnified GOPAC for settlements in four tort lawsuits, which together total $1.95 million. Filing 1 at ¶ 5. Continental alleges that substantial defense fees are still being incurred in that case, and additional, substantial indemnity obligations are likely to be incurred going forward. Filing 1 at ¶ 6.
In this case, Continental seeks a declaration regarding its duty to defend and indemnify GOPAC in a lawsuit filed against GOPAC by Fairbank in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (the "New York suit"). Filing 1-1; see also Fairbank v. GOPAC, case no. 1:13-CV-907, filing 1 (W.D.N.Y. 2013). In the New York suit, Fairbank alleges that by supplying E. coli -contaminated beef, GOPAC violated a "Product Guarantee" GOPAC provided to Fairbank. Filing 1 at ¶ 18; filing 1-1 at ¶¶ 14-18. Fairbank's complaint asserts multiple theories of recovery: breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Filing 1-1 at 8-12. Fairbank seeks a declaration that GOPAC breached the Product Guarantee and is liable for Fairbank's resulting damages, including Fairbank's recall costs; lost profits; lost enterprise value; and recall-related attorney fees, costs, and expenses. Filing 1 at ¶ 20; filing 1-1 at 6-8. Continental is currently defending GOPAC in the New York suit under a full reservation of rights. Filing 1 at ¶ 9.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Rule 12(b)(6)
To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 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. Id. While the Court must accept as true all facts pleaded by the nonmoving party and grant all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in favor of the nonmoving party, Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2012), a pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief requires the Court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
B. Rule 12(b)(1)
A motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) challenges whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. The party asserting subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of proof. Great Rivers Habitat Alliance v. FEMA, 615 F.3d 985, 988 (8th Cir. 2010). Rule 12(b)(1) motions can be decided in three ways: at the pleading stage, like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; on undisputed facts, like a summary judgment motion; and on disputed facts. Jessie v. Potter, 516 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 2008).
Continental contends that it should not be required to insure GOPAC's business dealings, and that the damages sought in the New York suit are beyond the scope of the Policy. Continental seeks a declaration that it has no obligation (under the Policy or otherwise) to indemnify or defend GOPAC in connection with the claims alleged in the New York suit. Filing 1 at 7. The Policy contains a "Contractual Liability" exclusion, which Continental has pleaded, apparently as the basis for its assertion of non-coverage. See filing 1 at ¶¶ 29-31.
In response, GOPAC filed the pending motion to dismiss. GOPAC's motion attacks Continental's complaint in two steps. GOPAC first asserts that the complaint, as well as certain materials which it contends are embraced by the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d), demonstrate as a matter of law that Continental has a duty to defend GOPAC in the New York suit. According to GOPAC, Fairbank's claims are for property damage and are covered by the Policy, and do not fall within the Contractual Liability exclusion. Thus, GOPAC argues that Continental does have a duty to defend it in the New York suit and its request for a declaration to the contrary must be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. GOPAC then contends that the remainder of Continental's complaint-a request for a declaration regarding its duty to indemnify-is not ripe for review. So, GOPAC argues, the remainder of Continental's complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
The Court finds that at least some portion of the New York suit presents a claim for property damage within the meaning of the Policy. The Court further finds that the Contractual Liability exclusion does not apply to at least some portions of the New York suit. Continental asserts that other exclusions may apply, but it has not identified them. Thus, the Court will dismiss Continental's request for a declaration that it owes no duty to defend, insofar as that request is based upon the Contractual Liability exclusion or the lack of a claim for property damage. And the Court will order Continental to show cause why its duty-do-defend claim should be not dismissed in its entirety.
At this time, Continental's duty-to-indemnify claim is similarly underdeveloped, and the Court is therefore unable to determine if the remainder of Continental's complaint states a claim for relief or is even ripe for review. Accordingly, the Court will order Continental ...