Stallworth v. Hartford Insurance Company

Full title: THOMAS STALLWORTH and WILLIE MAE STALLWORTH, Plaintiffs, v. THE HARTFORD…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

Date published: Sep 19, 2006

Case No: 3:06cv89/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Sep. 19, 2006)

Opinion

Case No: 3:06cv89/MCR/EMT.

September 19, 2006

ORDER

M. RODGERS, Magistrate Judge

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation dated August 8, 2006. Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the report and recommendation, and any objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is GRANTED in part as follows:

a. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED as to Count II, to the extent Plaintiffs assert a claim for statutory first party bad faith. Dismissal of this claim shall be without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a new action when the issue of Hartford's liability has been determined.

b. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is DENIED as to Count II, to the extent Plaintiffs assert a common law claim for breach of the warranty of good faith and fair dealing.

c. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED as to Count III, Plaintiffs' claim for unfair claim settlement practices. Dismissal of this claim shall be without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a new action when the issue of Hartford's liability has been determined.

d. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Manley, and Defendant Manley is DISMISSED as a Defendant.

e. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.

f. Defendants' request for a more definite statement of Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is DENIED.

3. This matter is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on Plaintiffs' claims, including the issuance of an order directing Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that includes a more definite statement of Plaintiffs' common law claim of breach of the warranty of good faith and fair dealing.

DONE AND ORDERED.