Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01778/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-01778-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sandrine Mounier, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

RLI Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-01778-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Four Season Travel, 

LLC (Doc. 14).1 For the following reasons the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

This case is before the Court in diversity jurisdiction, having been removed by the 

Defendants from the Superior Court for Maricopa County on March 18, 2019. (Doc. 1.) 

The complaint alleges the following facts, which for purposes of this motion to dismiss are 

taken as true. Plaintiffs Sandrine and Gustave Mounier are residents of France who decided 

to visit the American Southwest. As part of their visit, they contracted with Defendant Geo 

Tours for two tickets on a bus tour of various areas in northern Arizona. Geo Tours, as 

part of its management of the tour, had an insurance policy that covered the trip. Geo Tours 

contracted with Defendant Four Season Travel to provide a bus and chauffeur for the trip. 

Four Season insured the bus with Defendant RLI Corp., and the contract included an 

underinsured motorist provision (“UIM provision”). 

 

1 The Reply of Defendant Four Season was untimely filed and was therefore not considered 

by the Court.

Case 2:19-cv-01778-GMS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 Page 1 of 6
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On the night of November 10, 2015, apparently after they had been dropped off at 

their hotel for the evening, the Mouniers were in a crosswalk in Page, Arizona, when nonparty Albert Henry “drove his vehicle so as to collide into the Mouniers and/or lead them 

to believe they would be collided into as they traversed a crosswalk on foot.” (Doc. 1 at 

7.) Ms. Mounier was injured and was required to return home early, where she underwent 

surgery on her wrist and has since lost some function in the joint.

The Mouniers recovered the limits of Albert Henry’s liability insurance policy and 

then notified Geo Tours and Four Season that they would be making claims against their 

insurance. They also requested copies of the relevant policies and the accompanying limits. 

Four Season forwarded the claim over to RLI, its insurer. RLI denied the claim and refused 

to provide a copy of the entire insurance policy to the Mouniers. The Mouniers asked RLI 

to reconsider but were again denied. Eventually, RLI offered $10,000 to Ms. Mounier. 

The Mouniers then filed this action, alleging—as relevant to the current motion—a claim 

of “Negligence, Gross Negligence, [and] Punitive Damages” against all Defendants, 

including Four Season.

Four Season now moves to dismiss that claim, arguing that the Mouniers have failed 

in the complaint to state a plausible claim on which relief could be granted.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6) is designed to “test[ ] the legal sufficiency 

of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). To survive dismissal for 

failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain more than 

“labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”; it 

must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While “a complaint need not 

contain detailed factual allegations . . . it must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when 

Case 2:19-cv-01778-GMS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 Page 2 of 6
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Plausibility requires “more than a sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

When analyzing a complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), “[a]ll 

allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party.” Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 

legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are not given a presumption of 

truthfulness, and “conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not 

sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

1998).

II. Analysis

A. The negligence claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

Four Season argues that the negligence claim is barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations. Negligence actions in Arizona must be brought within two years of the accrual 

of the cause of action. Rowland v. Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc., 210 Ariz. 530, 532, 115 

P.3d 124, 126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-542). The cause of 

action accrues when “the plaintiff knows or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should 

know the facts underlying the cause.” Tavilla v. Cephalon, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 2d 759, 763–

64 (D. Ariz. 2012) (citing Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 182 

Ariz. 586, 588, 898 P.2d 964 (Ariz. 1995)).

Four Season asserts that the applicable two-year period in which the Mouniers can 

bring this negligence action began the night the Mouniers were injured—November 10, 

2015. However, the complaint does not allege that the negligence claim it brings has 

anything to do with that incident. Rather, the negligence claim centers on actions taken 

regarding its insurance claim and related acts. The accrual of the negligence claim is thus, 

at least at present, a question of fact, and will not result in dismissal of the claim at least at 

this stage of the case.

Case 2:19-cv-01778-GMS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 Page 3 of 6
- 4 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. The complaint fails to state a claim of negligence or punitive damages.

To state a claim for negligence in Arizona, a plaintiff must allege “(1) a duty 

requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the 

defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and 

the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 143, 150 

P.3d 228, 230 (2007) (en banc). 

Punitive damages require “something more” than simply demonstrating that a tort 

occurred. See Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 162, 726 P.2d 565, 478 (1986) (en 

banc). “The requisite ‘something more,’ or ‘evil mind,’ is established by [clear and 

convincing] evidence that [the] defendant either (1) intended to injure plaintiff or 

(2) consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of 

significant harm to others.” Gurule v. Illinois Mut. Life and Cas. Co., 152 Ariz. 600, 602, 

734 P.2d 85, 87 (1987) (en banc).

The complaint fails to sufficiently allege a negligence, gross negligence, or punitive 

damages claim against Four Season. The allegations against Four Season in the complaint 

are sparse and do not establish that Four Season breached a duty or caused injury to the 

Mouniers. The complaint alleges that “the manner—willfully, wantonly, consciously, 

voluntarily, recklessly, maliciously, and/or with an evil mind—in which Defendants 

handled the Mouniers [sic] insurance claim constitutes a breach of their duties, which 

amount [sic] to the torts of negligence/gross negligence.” (Doc. 1 at 10.) The complaint 

also alleges that Four Seasons “adopted unfair, deceptive, and/or unconscionable trade 

practices(s) [sic] that were pursued with an evil mind and/or in willful, wanton, voluntary, 

reckless, malicious, and/or conscious disregard of the rights of their offerees/insureds, their 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, their duty to provide their offerees/insureds with 

equal consideration, and the laws of Arizona.” (Id.)

However, there are no factual allegations which would “allow[] the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678. There are no allegations establishing that Four Season breached any duty

Case 2:19-cv-01778-GMS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 Page 4 of 6
- 5 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to the Mouniers or that the Mouniers were injured by Four Season’s conduct. The 

complaint merely alleges that Four Season is a California limited liability company doing 

business in Arizona; that Geo Tours contracted with Four Season to provide a bus and 

chauffer for the trip; that Four Season had a UIM policy with RLI; that Four Season knew 

that its agents would be spending three days chauffeuring tourists around Arizona; that the 

Mouniers notified Four Season of an insurance claim and asked for copies of the relevant 

insurance policies; that Four Season turned the claim over to its insurer, RLI; and that 

ultimately RLI denied the Mouniers’ claim. Those statements, which constitute the entirety 

of the allegations regarding Four Season in the complaint, do not allege a plausible claim 

for relief on a negligence theory. Neither do those allegations state a claim for punitive 

damages.

The Mouniers contend that “Four Season’s negligence can be reasonably inferred 

from the allegations because of their contracts with each of the other defendants.” (Doc. 

15 at 3.) The Mouniers cite no authority to support that statement, and the Court does not 

find it persuasive.2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Four 

Season Travel, LLC (Doc. 14) is GRANTED, and the claims against it are dismissed with 

leave to amend. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint, 

they shall do so within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

///

///

///

///

///

 

2

In fact, the Court notes that both parties’ briefing on this motion is devoid of citation to 

legal authority, aside from citations to case law establishing the standard of review for 

motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Case 2:19-cv-01778-GMS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs elect not to file an amended 

complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the Clerk of Court shall

terminate Defendant Four Season Travel, LLC without further Order of the Court.

Dated this 30th day of May, 2019.

Case 2:19-cv-01778-GMS Document 24 Filed 05/31/19 Page 6 of 6