Hall v. South River Restoration, Inc. (270 F. Supp. 3d 117, 2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(September 11, 2017)

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Christopher Hall, Piper Hall, and their child B.H. bring this lawsuit against Defendants South River Restoration, Inc. (“South River”) and USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”) for their respective roles in the ill-fated attempt to repair Plaintiffs Washington D.C. home after it was damaged during Super-storm Sandy. Pending before the Court is USAA’s [10] Motion to Dismiss. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendant’s motion. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) claims are plausible and should not be dismissed at this early stage in the case. However, Plaintiffs’ negligence-based claims will be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiffs have not pled that Defendant owed them any duty that is meaningfully distinct and independent from the duties Defendant owed Plaintiffs pursuant to their homeowners’ insurance policy.

I.BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ home was seriously damaged during Superstorm Sandy. Compl., EOF No. 1, at ¶ 12. Plaintiffs'allege that when they filed a claim with USAA, their home insurance provider, USAA accepted coverage but required that Plaintiffs use one of USAA’s preferred contractors, South River, to do the repair work. Id. ¶¶ 3, 26, 297. Plaintiffs allege that instead of repairing their home, South River spent the next four years causing their home further damage through their negligent work. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiffs allegedly complained about South River’s work to USAA on numerous occasions, and asked USAA to allow them to use another contractor. See, e.g„ id. ¶¶ 32, 44, 55, 62, 82, 93,147. USAA repeatedly refused. Id. Eventually, USAA issued Plaintiffs a check that it claimed satisfied its obligation to pay for the storm damage to Plaintiffs’ home, and informed Plaintiffs that it would no longer be involved with their claim. Id. ¶¶ 186-88. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit soon thereafter. Plaintiffs assert causes of action against USAA for breach of contract,- violation of the CPPA, negligence, negligent infliction .of emotional distress and negligent misrepresentation. Id. ¶¶ 292-348. Defendant USAA has moved to dismiss all of the claims against it.

II.LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that it (