SAN ANTONIO, October 21 — A federal judge denied a motion to remand a breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit to state court, finding that the joinder of the attorney who represented the insureds in the underlying tort action was not proper.
In Amanda Montoya, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-00005, W.D. Texas; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141322), U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth held that the joinder of a lawyer retained by State Farm Insurance Company to represent their insured, Andrew Acosta, did not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction.
Amanda and Deandra Montoya were injured in an automobile accident when their car was hit by Acosta. Acosta and a passenger in his vehicle were killed. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. insured Acosta under a policy with limits of of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. State Farm retained a lawyer, Jeff B. Frey, to represent Acosta’s estate.
Acosta’s lawyer settled for the policy limits with injured passengers, leaving the Montoyas with no access to the policy limits. The Montoyas sued the Acosta estate in Bexar County, Texas, and obtained a verdict and judgment of $542,933.67. The Montoyas took an assignment from the Acosta estate, and then sued State Farm, and the lawyer they retained, Frey, in state court for breach of contract and bad faith, as well as alleged breaches of the Texas Insurance Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The Montoyas claimed Frey improperly settled the case with the passengers, and that he acted as a claims adjuster in doing so, naming him as a defendant in the bad faith and breach of contract case.
State Farm removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and argued that Frey’s Texas’ citizenship did not defeat diversity because Frey was improperly joined.
The Montoyas filed a remand motion which was denied by Judge Lamberth, who held that Frey could not be a proper defendant as an “insurance adjuster”:
“the Montoyas articulated no facts in their original petition that Mr. Frey himself had the authority to finalize a settlement himself… Instead, they merely state that Mr. Frey was hired to ‘evaluate, negotiate, and/or finalize the multiple settlements arising out of the collision,’ and that ‘State Farm and their agent Jeff B. Frey proceeded with finalizing settlements without the knowledge of, and to the detriment of, Plaintiffs.’ Thus, the Montoyas failed to allege that Mr. Frey had the authority to settle these claims himself, and this Court need not decide whether an attorney appointed to represent an insured is analogous to an adjuster under the Texas Insurance Code. Even if he is, there is no liability under Section 541.060(a)(2) absent the authority to settle. Since Mr. Frey did not have authority to settle, there is no reasonable basis to predict the Montoyas might be able to recover against Mr. Frey for violations of Section 541.060(a)(2).”
The judge also ruled that there were no allegations made against Frey regarding misrepresentation of the policy:
“[t]here are no factual allegations against Mr. Frey for misrepresentations of the policy; the only allegations made against him concern his role in evaluating and settling claims. . . The Montoyas now suggest that the single reference to State Farm in the petition is sufficient to maintain a cause of action against Mr. Frey as State Farm’s agent. But ‘threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements’ do not satisfy Rule 12(b)(6). The conclusory statement that State Farm was liable under § 541.061 was unsupported by any factual allegations against Mr. Frey specifically. Thus, the Montoyas have not even stated a claim against Mr. Frey under § 541.061.”