NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 11-1379

_____________

JACK DANIELS MOTORS, INC., 

 Appellant

v.

UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

______________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(D.C. Civ. Action No. 10-cv-5376)

District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 22, 2011

______________

Before: FISHER, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: September 28, 2011)

______________

OPINION

______________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Jack Daniels Motors, Inc. (“Jack Daniels”), seeks review of the District 

Court’s decision granting the motion to dismiss filed by Universal Underwriters 

Insurance Company (“Universal”). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the 
2

District Court’s decision. 

I. Background

We write primarily for the benefit of the parties and recount only the essential 

facts. Jack Daniels is a car dealership that sells Audis and other cars. Jack Daniels filed 

a claim on its insurance policy with Universal, based on the policy’s crime coverage 

provision. The scheme leading to the claim involved two employees of Jack Daniels, 

who submitted fraudulent customer surveys to Audi. The fraudulent surveys, when 

combined with genuine customer surveys, made it appear as if Jack Daniels had qualified 

for a performance bonus issued by Audi. Upon discovery of the fraudulent surveys, Audi 

removed the tally of the fraudulent surveys and recalculated whether Jack Daniels 

qualified for the performance bonus. Jack Daniels did not qualify. Audi did not pay the 

bonus. 

Jack Daniels urged that the fraud in which its employees engaged fell within the 

parameters of the crime coverage provision of its insurance policy. Jack Daniels sought 

to recover from Universal the amount of the performance bonus, which it would have 

received if the fraudulent reviews were valid or if the surveys Jack Daniels obtained on 

its own, after discovery of the fraud, were included. 

 Universal declined to pay the claim, and Jack Daniels sought relief in the District

Court. Concluding that the potential bonus did not fall within the definitions in the crime 

coverage provision of the policy, the District Court granted Universal’s motion to 

dismiss, with prejudice. 
3

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The District Court had jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have 

jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We exercise plenary review over a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Grief v.

Klem, 591 F.3d 672, 676 (3d Cir. 2010). 

AIn deciding a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint 

must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and all 

inferences must be drawn in favor of them.@ McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 

526 (3d Cir. 2009). To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Aa complaint must 

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.@ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

III. Analysis 

Jack Daniels argues that the District Court erred in granting the motion to dismiss 

by reading the insurance policy too narrowly and failing to consider Jack Daniels’s

reasonable expectations regarding the extent of coverage. We disagree and will affirm 

the District Court’s decision for the reasons set forth in its opinion. 

We note that the courts in New Jersey have recognized that an insured’s 

reasonable expectations regarding the extent of coverage should be considered, but only 

in situations where “misleading terms and conditions of insurance” exist. DiOrio v. New 
4

Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 398 A.2d 1274, 1280 (N.J. 1979). When that occurs, “genuine 

ambiguities are resolved against the insurer.” Id. We agree with the District Court that 

no ambiguities exist, and that the terms of the policy, as written, should be applied.

Jack Daniels also argues that the District Court should have allowed discovery to 

proceed in order to allow Jack Daniels to identify facts in support of its claim. No 

amount of discovery would change the definitions and coverage set forth in the policy. 

Jack Daniels’s policy only covered losses involving money, securities, and revenue and 

other stamps. The performance bonus, which Jack Daniels had hoped to earn, does not 

fall within any of these defined terms, under their ordinary meaning, as the District Court 

aptly determined. Therefore, there was no reason to allow the complaint to proceed to 

discovery. 

IV. Conclusion

We will affirm the decision of the District Court.