Stradford v. Zurich Insurance Co

Plaintiff had previously notified Defendant Zurich Insurance co. that on January 17, 2000, he returned to his office from his vacation and found water dripping from frozen pipes and extensive water damage to his personal property and the interior of his office.” He further notified Defendant that certain dental implants, worth more than $100,000, which had been stored in his office had become wet and ruined. After receiving these payments, Plaintiff “submitted a revised claim under the Policy totaling $1,385,456.70, consisting of $168,000.00 for property damage, and a business interruption claim of $1,209,456.70. Following an investigation of Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant, by letter dated January 31, 2001, disclaimed coverage for Plaintiff’s claim and demanded the return of the $151,154.74 it had already paid. Slightly less than one year later, Plaintiff commenced this suit seeking $1,385,456.70 on the Policy, less the $151,154.74 already paid, or $1,234,301.96. Defendant counterclaimed, asserting that Plaintiff had made fraudulent claims, and sought the return of the $151,154.74, punitive damages, and investigation expenses. Plaintiff moved to dismiss those counterclaims that are based in fraud for failure to state their claims with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b), and to dismiss certain other counterclaims for failure to state a claim.