2 months ago

A Court Will Never Accept Legal Conclusions in a Suit
Post 5115

A Contract Cannot Legally Bind A Person Or Entity Which Is Not A Party To The Contract.

The plaintiff, Nataly Gasova, claimed a breach of contract related to an insurance policy which IISS sold to her. IISS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing inter alia that there was no contract between these parties. Gasova moved to amend her complaint to abandon her breach of contract claim and instead bring claims related to the advertising and sale of the insurance policy.

In Nataly V. Gasova v. Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions, Civ. No. 1:24-CV-2279, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 26, 2025) Intact Insurance Specialty Solutions (“IISS”) moved the court to dismiss the suit.

Background

On November 4, 2023, Gasova was involved in an automobile accident while working as a rideshare driver. Gasova sued IISS, Uber Technologies Inc., and Farmers Insurance Exchange, alleging all three defendants were liable for a failure to make payments due to Gasova under the policy IISS sold to her, as well as alleging fraud. Gasova amended her complaint, dismissed Uber and Farmers, naming IISS as the sole defendant and alleging breach of contract.

On December 4, 2024, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein Gasova released all claims against IISS related to the car accident underlying this case. On December 31, 2024, IISS removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On January 7, 2025, IISS moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim arguing, inter alia, that the release foreclosed Gasova's pursuit of her claims in the second amended complaint and that the complaint failed to state a claim as it did not establish there was a breach of contract.

DISCUSSION
Motion to Dismiss - Standard of Review

A court is not required to accept legal conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. A complaint has to show an entitlement with its facts. Where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not shown that the pleader is entitled to relief.

The Motion to Dismiss Will be Granted.

It is axiomatic that a contract cannot legally bind a person or entity which is not a party to the contract. Because Gasova has not alleged facts showing there was a contract between the parties, the USDC concluded she has failed to state a claim.

Gasova's theory of liability relies primarily on IISS's inaction, alleging that IISS failed to inform her about certain elements of the policy, which is inadequate to establish a viable cause of action.

The USDC concluded there is no contract between these parties, and that permitting Gasova's desired amendment would be futile. Therefore, IISS's motion to dismiss was granted and it denied Gasova's motion to amend.

ZALMA OPINION

Some people wrongly believe that it is easy to sue an insurance company and become wealthy from the attempt. This case establishes that the belief if unfounded. Insurers fight back and refuse to pay a suit that fails to state a cause of action sufficient to allow the case to go to trial. Gasova should have stopped when she settled.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.

Loading comments...