United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
December 8, 2005.
ARTHUR R. COLE, Plaintiff,
TRAVELERS INSURANCE, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DONETTA AMBROSE, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This civil action, removed from state court, arises out of a
motor vehicle accident in which Plaintiff allegedly sustained
injuries. Following the accident, Plaintiff made a claim for
benefits from Defendant, Plaintiff's insurer. Defendant denied
the claim. Plaintiff then filed the present action, asserting
causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith based on
Defendant's alleged denial of "uninsured/underinsured" motorist
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Because I will consider a stipulation
of fact by the parties, as well as Plaintiff's admissions in
response to Defendant's Motion, I will treat this matter under
summary judgment principles according to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)
and 56. Under the circumstances of this case, which have included
two conferences with the Court, it is clear that the parties have
had a reasonable opportunity to present all pertinent material.
Rule 56 requires that I consider whether the pertinent materials
"show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Here, it is undisputed that the non-party involved in
Plaintiff's motor vehicle accident was, in fact, insured; he did
not intend to assert an independent cause of action based on
uninsured motorist benefits. At a conference on November 22,
2005, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff made no demand for
underinsured motorist benefits. At this time, therefore,
Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, sustain his causes of
action based on denial of either uninsured or underinsured
AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2005, it is ORDERED
that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.
This case is marked Closed.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.