Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01091/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01091-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of Insurance Contract

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ANNYE J. THOMAS, c/o the )

estate of Lakecia Q. )

Broadnax, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv1091-MHT

) (WO) 

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Annye J. Thomas brings this lawsuit on

behalf of the estate of decedent Lakecia Q. Broadnax who

was fatally injured in an automobile accident. Thomas

alleges that defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company

rongfully denied Thomas’s claim for underinsured motorists

insurance coverage. This lawsuit was removed from state

to federal court based on diversity-of-citizenship

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. It is now

before the court on Auto-Owners’s motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), which

Case 2:06-cv-01091-MHT-TFM Document 12 Filed 01/19/07 Page 1 of 5
2

was included in its answer to the complaint. For the

reasons that follow, that motion will be denied.

I. MOTION-TO-DISMISS STANDARD

A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state

a claim only if it is clear that no relief could be

granted under any set of facts that could be proven

consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Hishon

v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984). In evaluating a

motion to dismiss, the court will accept as true all wellpleaded factual allegations and will view them in a light

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hishon, 467 U.S.

at 7; Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 309 F.3d 1333,

1335 (11th Cir. 2002). “The issue is not whether a

plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant

is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”

Sheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). The threshold

for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for failure

to state a claim is “exceedingly low.” Ancata v. Prison

Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 703 (11th Cir. 1985).

Case 2:06-cv-01091-MHT-TFM Document 12 Filed 01/19/07 Page 2 of 5
3

II. FACTUAL SUMMARY

The facts as outlined in the complaint do not state

the details of the accident that claimed the decedent’s

life. The complaint does not say whether the decedent was

driving her car, Thomas’s car, or someone else’s car--or

whether she was driving at all. The facts only indicate

that the decedent was involved in a fatal car accident and

that, when Thomas filed an insurance claim with AutoOwners, the company denied it. Although Auto-Owners

admits to selling an automobile insurance policy to

Thomas, it denies that the decedent was covered under the

policy; the company also contends that the accident did

not involve the owner or operator of an uninsured or

underinsured vehicle, and Thomas’s auto insurance policy

does not include uninsured or underinsured motorist

coverage. 

III. DISCUSSION

The Alabama Uninsured Motorist Act provides that

Case 2:06-cv-01091-MHT-TFM Document 12 Filed 01/19/07 Page 3 of 5
4

“No automobile liability ... policy ...

shall be delivered or issued ... in this

state ... unless coverage is provided

therein ... for the protection of

persons insured thereunder who are

legally entitled to recover damages from

owners or operators of uninsured motor

vehicles because of bodily injury ...

including death. ... provided, that the

named insured shall have the right to

reject such coverage ....”

1975 Ala. Code § 32-7-23. 

Based on the facts as alleged in the complaint,

Thomas’s claim could survive if Thomas has underinsured

motorist insurance through her Auto-Owners policy, the

decedent was covered under Thomas’s insurance policy, and

both the decedent and Thomas met the conditions precedent

under the terms of the policy. Therefore, Thomas should

be allowed to present evidence of Auto-Owners’s liability.

See Sheuer, 416 U.S. at 236 (“The issue is not whether a

plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant

is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”). 

***

Case 2:06-cv-01091-MHT-TFM Document 12 Filed 01/19/07 Page 4 of 5
For the reasons outlined above, it is ORDERED that

defendant Auto-Owners Insurance Company’s motion to

dismiss, contained in its answer (doc. no. 3), is denied.

 DONE, this the 19th day of January, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01091-MHT-TFM Document 12 Filed 01/19/07 Page 5 of 5