Thomas Daniels Agency, Inc. v. Nationwide Insurance Co. of America
Docket: Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04928-RMG
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina; June 24, 2015; Federal District Court
Defendant RGL Forensic, Inc. (RGL) has successfully filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which the Court has granted with prejudice. The case involves an insurance coverage dispute between Plaintiff Thomas Daniels Agency, Inc. and Defendant Nationwide Insurance Company of America. The Plaintiff was insured under a policy for a building in North Charleston, South Carolina, which was significantly damaged by a fire ignited by an automobile collision on February 18, 2007. Despite filing a claim and relying on Nationwide’s assurances of payment, the Plaintiff has not received full indemnification.
RGL was engaged by Nationwide to assess the Plaintiff's losses, and after several communications and requests for documents, the Plaintiff sought updates from Nationwide in 2014, to which Nationwide responded with repeated requests for materials already provided. The Plaintiff filed a civil action against both Nationwide and RGL in November 2014, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and fraud, asserting that RGL acted as an agent of Nationwide under the theory of respondeat superior.
The legal standard for a judgment on the pleadings requires no substantive dispute of material fact, allowing the moving party to obtain judgment as a matter of law. The court's review is restricted to the pleadings and any attached documents, viewing all allegations in favor of the non-moving party.
RGL seeks a judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence and fraud are insufficient. RGL argues that it owes no legal duty to the Plaintiff, which is essential for a negligence claim. Under South Carolina law, to establish negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and resulting damages. The court notes that an independent insurance adjuster like RGL does not generally owe a duty of care to the insured, as established in prior case law. The Plaintiff’s attempt to apply the doctrine of respondeat superior to establish a legal duty is also rejected.
For the fraud claim, the Plaintiff must satisfy specific elements, including a false representation and the hearer's reliance on that representation. South Carolina law specifies that nondisclosure is fraudulent only when there is a duty to disclose, which arises in limited circumstances, such as a fiduciary relationship. The Plaintiff alleges that RGL engaged in fraudulent concealment by remaining silent about its need for additional information until prompted and also claims fraudulent misrepresentation based on an email from RGL to Nationwide regarding the need for more information to assess the Plaintiff's loss. Overall, RGL contends that both claims lack a legal basis, while the Plaintiff maintains that sufficient facts exist to support both claims.
Plaintiff claims RGL knew its statement regarding additional information was false, alleging receipt of extensive information from Plaintiff's counsel necessary for determining Plaintiff's loss. However, the Court finds no basis for a fraudulent concealment claim, as there is no fiduciary relationship or contractual agreement between Plaintiff and RGL. RGL was hired by Nationwide to assess Plaintiff's loss, and Plaintiff interacted with RGL only a few times. Despite Plaintiff's belief in a fiduciary relationship, no supporting facts are provided.
Additionally, Plaintiff's allegations do not substantiate a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. The Amended Complaint does not identify any false statement made by RGL. Plaintiff points to an email from RGL to Nationwide on February 17, 2014, claiming it falsely stated information requested remained outstanding, despite having received substantial information from Plaintiff's counsel in March 2013. However, the email indicates that the information received was limited and lists items that remained outstanding, none of which were provided by Plaintiff. Thus, there is no falsity evident in RGL’s communication.
Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's fraud and negligence claims against RGL are legally insufficient. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted with prejudice. The Court will not address additional arguments from RGL, and it notes that Plaintiff claims to have timely reported the loss to Nationwide.
