Insurer’s Motion to Dismiss Claims by Plaintiff not Named in Policy Fails

    The federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss even though the plaintiff was not named in the policy. Viccellio v. Foremost Pro. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S Dist. LEXIS 61590 (M.D. La. March 31, 2025).

    Plaintiff's residence sustained damage from Hurricane Ida. Plaintiff timely notified the insurer, Foremost, of a claim under the policy. Foremost failed to timely pay for the loss. 

    Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. Foremost moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Foremost asserted that Patricia Viccellio was the name insured. Plaintiff, however, was Christy Viccellio. Foremost argued that the proper plaintiff, Patricia Viccelio, who was not named, was deceased. Foremost contended that Patricia Viccellio never transferred the policy to plaintiff, and Patricia Viccellio did not list plaintlff as an insured under the policy. 

    Foremost argued that courts examine the language of a policy itself to determine if a party is an insured, additional insured, or third-party beneficiary. Plaintiff countered that the policy in fact named plaintiff as an insured. She referred to a Claim Outcome Letter regarding the policy from Foremost addressed to plaintiff and Patricia Viccellio. Foremost responded that the C?laim Outcome Letter incorrectly listed both Patricia Viccellio and plaintiff as insureds. 

    The court decided not to consider the Claim Outcome Letter on a Motion to Dismiss because it was not attached to the complaint nor alleged in the complaint. But the court could also not accept as true Foremost's reference to Patricia Viccellio's death. No facts were alleged in the complaint or articulated in the policy regarding her death.

    The complaint alleged that plaintiff contracted with Foremost. The policy, however, listed only "Patricia Viccellio" and did not explicitly list plaintiff, Christy Viccellio, as an insured. This raised questions of whether plaintiff would be able to demonstrate sufficient evidence to prove her claims. Regardless, on a motion to dismiss the court accepted as true plaintiff's assertion that plaintiff was the "Viccellio" who contracted with Foremost. Viewing this fact in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the difference in the first name on the complaint as opposed to that of the insured noted in the policy did not create enough doubt to justify dismissing the entire action without first allowing the parties to addresss this evidentiary issue. Therefore, the court declined to dismiss the case for failure to sate a claim.