Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00628/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00628-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH BROADWAY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-628-WKW

) [WO]

STATE FARM MUTUAL )

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Joseph Broadway’s Motion for Leave to File First 

Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 78.) Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company (“State Farm”) opposes the motion. (Doc. # 80.) For the reasons 

that follow, the motion is due to be denied. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mr. Broadway’s motion to amend is governed by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 15(a)(2), which requires that a party wishing to amend his pleadings before 

trial obtain the opposing party’s written consent or leave of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(2). Although “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires,” id., 

the court may deny a motion to amend on numerous grounds, “such as undue delay, 

bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing 

Case 2:13-cv-00628-KS-SRW Document 84 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 3
2

party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Foman 

v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

An amendment is futile when a claim as proposed would be subject to 

dismissal. See Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004). 

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[F]acial plausibility” exists “when the plaintiff 

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

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 

II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Broadway seeks to amend his complaint to add an additional count of bad 

faith against State Farm. Mr. Broadway’s operative complaint already includes one 

claim for bad-faith breach of contract. He seeks leave, however, to add a second badfaith breach-of-contract claim to assert that State Farm’s actions throughout the 

present litigation amount to bad faith. Namely, he calls into question State Farm’s 

objections to Mr. Broadway’s discovery requests, its decision to “rais[e] a groundless 

and baseless defense” in its untimely answer, and its repeated motions to dismiss. 

(Doc. # 78, at 1.) 

State Farm challenges Mr. Broadway’s newly proposed Count III as futile, and 

this court agrees for three reasons. First, Mr. Broadway’s proposed claim is 

Case 2:13-cv-00628-KS-SRW Document 84 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 3
3

duplicative, as he has already alleged a claim of bad-faith breach of contract. Second, 

this court is not aware, and Mr. Broadway has failed to offer any case law, that 

Alabama law recognizes a bad-faith cause of action founded solely upon a party’s 

defense in the underlying litigation. Third, independent research evidences that Mr. 

Broadway’s arguments are better suited for consideration as part of his initial and 

presently pending bad faith claim. See Nat’s Ins. Ass’n v. Sockwell, 829 So. 2d 111, 

137 (Ala. 2002) (approving a punitive damages award on a bad-faith claim which was 

based in part on the trial court’s consideration of the insurer’s decision to file an 

answer “denying any obligation to pay [the insured] underinsured motorist benefits,” 

despite knowing that the claim should have been paid). Accordingly, Mr. Broadway’s 

motion is due to be denied.1

III. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is ORDERED that Mr. 

Broadway’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 78) is 

DENIED. 

DONE this 28th day of May, 2015.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Mr. Broadway also has sought leave to amend his complaint to make explicit that his 

currently pending claims for breach of contract and bad faith incorporate State Farm’s 

“continuous and ongoing” wrongdoing. His operative complaint, however, already sufficiently 

alleges ongoing and continuous breaches and bad faith on the part of State Farm. Accordingly, 

the additional language is not necessary.

Case 2:13-cv-00628-KS-SRW Document 84 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 3