Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180629_0000789.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:34:36+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Pinon Sun Condominium Association, Inc. v. Atain Specialty Insurance Co.
Pinon Sun Condominium Association, Inc. v. Atain Specialty Insurance Co.
CLAIM SOLUTIONS LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, SCOTT BENGLEN, individually, SHALZ CONSTRUCTION LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and BRADLEY SHALZ, individually, Third Party Defendants.
Michael J. Watanabe, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Pinon Sun Condominium Association, Inc. (“Pinion Sun”) and Third-Party Defendants Claim Solutions, LLC, Scott Benglen, Shalz Construction, LLC, and Bradley Shalz's (collectively “Movants”) Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Docket Nos. 52 & 64). In the subject motions, Movants seek to dismiss Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Great Lakes Insurance, SE f/k/a Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc's (“Great Lakes”), Atain Specialty Insurance Case Company (“Atain”) and Indian Harbor Insurance Company's (“Indian Harbor”) (collectively “Defendants”) Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaints for Damages and Declaratory Judgment (Docket Nos. 12 & 51.). Judge Christine M. Arguello referred the subject motions to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. (Docket No. 82) The Court has reviewed the subject motions (Docket Nos. 52 & 64), Defendants' Responses (Docket Nos. 80 & 84), and Movants' Replies. (Docket Nos. 91 & 92.) The Court has taken judicial notice of the Court's file, and considered the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The Court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.
Movants now seek to dismiss all of Defendants' claims for relief, except the breach of contract claim. Movants argue that Defendants' merely cite the elements of each claim without providing a factual basis to support each element.
In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, view those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Brokers' Choice of America, Inc. v. NBC Universal, Inc., 757 F.3d 1125, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2014); Mink v. Knox, 613 F.3d 995, 1000 (10th Cir. 2010). Conclusory allegations are insufficient. Cory v. Allstate Ins., 583 F.3d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir. 2009). Instead, in the complaint, the plaintiff must allege a “plausible” entitlement to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-556 (2007). A complaint warrants dismissal if it fails “in toto to render plaintiffs' entitlement to relief plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n.14 (italics in original). “In determining the plausibility of a claim, we look to the elements of the particular cause of action, keeping in mind that the Rule 12(b)(6) standard does not require a plaintiff to set forth a prima facie case for each element.” Safe Street Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 878 (10th Cir. 2017) (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted). A court may not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that have not been alleged, or that a defendant has violated laws in ways that a plaintiff has not alleged. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983); see also Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (court may not “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint”). The “‘burden[, however, ] is on the moving party to prove that no legally cognizable claim for relief exists.'” Hall v. Oliver, Civil Action No. 15-cv-01949-RBJ-MJW, 2017 WL 1437290, at *4 n.1 (citing 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (3d ed.)).
Movants argue that Defendants' misrepresentation and insurance fraud claims fail for several reasons. First, they contend that Defendants failed to plead these claims with particularity. Second, they claim that Defendants failed to allege that Shalz is an agent acting on Pinon Sun's behalf, or that Pinon Sun consented to any alleged fraudulent actions by Shalz or Solutions. Finally, Movants state that insurance fraud and claims for misrepresentation are only coverage defenses. Defendants maintain that they sufficiently alleged both claims.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1357