United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
D. WOLSON, J.
Elansari brings this action against Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company for allegedly failing to provide Mr. Elansari work
loss benefits in accordance with his auto insurance policy.
Because Liberty Mutual does not have an insurance policy or
contract with Mr. Elansari, the Court grants Liberty
Mutual's motion to dismiss with respect to each of Mr.
Elansari's claims but affords Mr. Elansari the
opportunity to refile his claims against the proper entity.
Elansari, who worked full time as a driver, was involved in a
vehicle accident in West Chester, Pennsylvania. For the
policy year ending September 15, 2018, Mr. Elansari had an
auto insurance policy that The First Liberty Insurance Corp.
(“First Liberty”) had issued. Following the
accident, Mr. Elansari was prescribed medication that caused
drowsiness and included an instruction not to drive while on
the medication. As a result, Mr. Elansari reduced his working
hours from 40-60 hours per week to 20 hours per week.
Elansari apparently filed an insurance claim with First
Liberty, seeking coverage for his lost income. First Liberty
had a physician examine Mr. Elansari, and that physician
concluded that Mr. Elansari could return to work full time.
On that basis, First Liberty denied Mr. Elansari's claim.
Mr. Elansari contends that decision was erroneous and that he
is entitled to work loss benefits under his insurance policy.
On July 30, 2019, Mr. Elansari filed a Complaint against
Liberty Mutual (ECF No. 1). In response, on August 23, 2019,
Liberty Mutual filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5).
ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, the Court must accept as
true all well-pleaded allegations of fact in the
plaintiff's complaint, and any reasonable inferences that
may be drawn therefrom, and must determine whether
“under any reasonable reading of the pleadings, the
plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Nami v.
Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations
omitted). A document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed, and a Court must “apply the applicable law,
irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has
mentioned it by name.” Dluhos v. Strasberg,
321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)
only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). That said, a court need not credit a
complaint's “bald assertions” or “legal
conclusions” when deciding a motion to dismiss. In
re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114
F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
Improper Insurance Provider
Elansari brings this action against Liberty Mutual for, among
other things, breach of contract for violation of his
insurance policy. As Liberty Mutual notes in its motion to
dismiss, however, it does not appear that a contract or
insurance policy existed between Mr. Elansari and Liberty
Mutual at the time of the accident. While the Complaint does
not include the insurance policy at issue, Liberty Mutual has
attached it as Exhibit 1 in its motion to dismiss. This Court
“may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a
defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to
dismiss… if that document is integral to or explicitly
relied upon in the complaint.” Kortyna v. Lafayette
Coll., 726 Fed.Appx. 934, 937 (3d Cir. 2018). Exhibit 1
is a LibertyGuard Auto Policy insurance, with policy number
A06-288-377081-7078, issued by The First Liberty Insurance
Corporate to Ayman T. Elansari. Accordingly, it appears Mr.
Elansari has brought this action against the wrong entity.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss Mr. Elansari's claims
against Liberty Mutual without prejudice. Mr. Elansari may
file an amended complaint if he decides he wants to proceed
against First Liberty.
Mr. Elansari's Claims
Mr. Elanasri had brought this action against First Liberty,
his claims would likely still fail. Although it is not
altogether clear what specific claims Mr. Elansari intended
to plead in his Complaint, when construed liberally, the
Court identifies four separate claims for 1) Breach of
Contract; 2) Equitable Relief; 3) Bad Faith; and 4) Fraud.
Breach of contract
breach of contract claim, Mr. Elansari alleges that his auto
insurance provider “renege[d] on its agreement”
to pay him for lost income, resulting from his accident and
subsequent medical complications. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 4.)
Nevertheless, Mr. Elansari does not specify which provision
in his policy his insurance provider breached, nor does he
provide a specific date on which the accident occurred. Mr.
Elansari's statement in his response brief that the
“accident occurred sometime in the later months of
2018, ” does not clarify whether it happened before the
policy terminated on September 15, 2018. (ECF No. 14 ¶
3.) Accordingly, without ...