Lisa Lambert v. SafePort Insurance Company, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted SafePort Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss claims for insurance fraud, tortious fraud, and civil conspiracy to commit fraud. The court held that Louisiana Revised Statutes § 22:1924 does not create a private cause of action and that the tortious fraud allegations failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and did not allege justifiable reliance. All claims against SafePort were dismissed with prejudice.

Holdings

1. Louisiana Revised Statutes section 22:1924 provides only a criminal enforcement mechanism and does not create a private cause of action for insurance fraud.
2. Lambert's tortious-fraud claim failed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s particularity requirement because the complaint did not identify the speaker, the specific fraudulent statements, the timing and place of the statements, or each defendant's role.
3. Lambert failed to state a Louisiana tort-fraud claim because she did not allege justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentation or an injury resulting from such reliance.
4. Lambert failed to state a claim for civil conspiracy to commit fraud because civil conspiracy is not independently actionable and the complaint failed to state an underlying fraud claim.
5. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because the statutory insurance-fraud claim was incurable and Lambert had been afforded three opportunities to amend the fraud and conspiracy claims but still failed to plead them with the required particularity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Louisiana Revised Statutes section 22:1924 creates a private cause of action for insurance fraud.
2. Whether Lambert pleaded tortious fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
3. Whether Lambert adequately pleaded justifiable reliance, an element of a Louisiana tort-fraud claim.
4. Whether Lambert stated a claim for civil conspiracy to commit fraud when the underlying fraud claims failed.
5. Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.

Disposition

dismissed