Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co. ( 2021 )

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
SELENA E. MOLINA Leonard L. Williams Justice Center
MASTER IN CHANCERY 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734
Final Report: August 31, 2021
Date Submitted: May 24, 2021
Richard E. Berl, Jr., Esquire Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire
Hudson, Jones, Jaywork & Fisher, LLC Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP
Dartmouth Business Center Brandywine Plaza West
34382 Carpenter’s Way, Suite 3 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 305
Lewes, Delaware 19958 Wilmington, DE 19803
Re: Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
Dear Counsel:
The plaintiff seeks reformation of an insurance policy and related relief. The
plaintiff argues it contracted with an insurance company to insure the plaintiff
against damage to certain real property but, after there was a fire at the property, the
insurer denied the plaintiff’s claim for damages. The plaintiff then learned it was
not the named insured on the written policy. The plaintiff argues it was left off the
written policy due to a mutual mistake and, as such, seeks reformation of the policy.
The insurer moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a reasonably
conceivable claim for reformation. For the following reasons, I recommend that the
motion to dismiss be denied. This is my final report.
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 2
I. Background1
Little River Landing LLC (“Little River”) is a Delaware limited liability
company located in Frederica, Delaware whose sole member is Love A. Mbuntcha
(the “Member”). 2 In April of 2019, Little River purchased real property located at
108 Omni Road in Dover, Delaware (the “Property”). 3 Intending to resell the
Property, Little River obtained “builders risk insurance” from American Zurich
Insurance Company and undertook and completed certain renovations on the
Property.4 The Property was then listed for sale with Olson Realty. 5
Thereafter, Little River decided to replace the “builders risk insurance” policy
with a “more traditional hazard insurance policy.” 6 In October or November of
2019, the Member’s husband was contacted by Helena Haileselassie (the “Agent”),
a representative of Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (“Allstate”).7
After that initial call, the Agent spoke with the Member and discussed the benefits
1
Unless otherwise noted, the facts recited herein are taken from the Complaint. Docket
Item (“D.I.”) 1.
2
D.I. 1 ¶ 1.
3
Id. ¶ 3.
4
Id. ¶ 3.
5
Id. ¶ 4.
6
Id. ¶ 5.
7
Id. ¶¶ 5-6.
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 3
of bundling coverage of the Property with certain automobiles, the Member’s
personal residence, and another investment property.8 During the discussion, the
Agent viewed photographs of the Property on the Olson Realty website and the
Member explained to the Agent that the Property had been purchased for resale and
was currently vacant.9 Thereafter, Little River believes Allstate sent a representative
to personally inspect the Property and the investment property.10
After the inspection, the Member received a letter from Allstate raising
concerns about insuring the investment property.11 The Member spoke with Michael
Roache, who represented himself as the Agent’s boss and owner of the insurance
agency, and the parties ultimately agreed to remove the automobiles and investment
property from the bundle.12 Allstate agreed to insure the Property and the Member’s
personal residence in exchange for a specified premium. 13 Neither Mr. Roache nor
the Agent asked Little River or the Member to complete an application or sign any
8
Id. ¶ 6.
9
Id. ¶ 7.
10
Id. ¶ 8.
11
Id. ¶ 9.
12
See id. ¶ 9.
13
Id. ¶ 10.
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 4
documentation related to the policy.14 A written policy was, nonetheless, issued
effective November 5, 2019.15 Unbeknownst to Little River, the written policy
reflects the named insured and owner of the Property as the Member and the
Member’s husband, rather than Little River. 16
On or about February 15, 2020, a fire of undetermined origin occurred at the
Property, damaging the renovated improvement. 17 The Member submitted a claim
to Allstate, which inspected the Property and denied the claim “[s]hortly
thereafter[.]”18 On July 21, 2020, the Delaware Department of Insurance (“DOI”)
confirmed “Allstate had denied the claim because the [P]roperty was vacant at the
time of the fire.”19 The DOI representative also informed the Member that the Agent
was not “a properly licensed agent for Allstate.”20
14
Id. ¶ 11.
15
Id. ¶ 12. Thereafter, monthly premium payments of $197.89 were paid through
automatic deductions from the Member’s bank account. Id.
16
Id. ¶ 13.
17
Id. ¶ 15. Little River alleges total damages of $241,900.00. Id. ¶ 19. This reflects the
costs for demolition and reconstruction of the improvement on the Property. Id.
18
Id. ¶ 16.
19
Id. ¶ 17.
20
Id.
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 5
Little River initially sued Allstate in the Delaware Superior Court.21 After
Allstate moved to dismiss, Little River requested leave to transfer the matter to this
Court to pursue reformation, a purely equitable claim. 22 The Superior Court granted
the transfer without ruling on Allstate’s motion to dismiss. 23
On January 7, 2021, Little River filed a Verified Complaint in this Court
pleading six claims: (1) reformation, (2) declaratory judgment, (3) breach of
contract, (4) promissory estoppel, (5) fraud, and (6) breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing (the “Complaint”).24 Allstate moved to dismiss the
Complaint under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Little River failed
to state a cognizable claim for reformation (the “Motion”). 25 The Motion was fully
briefed and oral argument was held on May 24, 2021.26
21
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Insurance, C.A. No. S20C-09-018 MHC (Del.
Super.) (“Superior Court Action”). I find I may take judicial notice of the Superior Court
Action. See Aequitas Sols., Inc. v. Anderson, 2012 WL 2903324, at *3 n.17 (Del. Ch. Jun.
25, 2012) (taking judicial notice of a pleading filed in a related action).
22
Superior Court Action D.I. 7.
23
Superior Court Action D.I. 9, 11.
24
D.I. 1.
25
D.I. 4.
26
See D.I. 8, 10, 12.
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 6
II. Analysis
Allstate seeks dismissal under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim. Allstate contends (1) Little River is not insured under the policy and
thus has no standing to seek reformation; (2) because the named insured, the
Member, does not have an insurable interest, the policy is unenforceable as a matter
of law and not subject to reformation; and (3) Little River is not seeking merely
reformation but rather a new commercial policy naming a new corporate owner. 27
The standard of review is settled:
(i) all well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true; (ii) even
vague allegations are “well-pleaded” if they give the opposing party
notice of the claim; (iii) the Court must draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the non-moving party; and ([iv]) dismissal is inappropriate
unless the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any
reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof. 28
Allstate’s primary argument for dismissal is standing. Little River bears the
burden of demonstrating it has standing to bring its claims. 29 Delaware courts
27
D.I. 5.
28
Savor, Inc. v. FMR Corp., 812 A.2d 894, 896-97 (Del. 2002) (citations and quotation
marks omitted). “[W]here, as here, the issue of standing is so closely related to the merits,
a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing is properly considered under Rule 12(b)(6)
rather than Rule 12(b)(1).” Appriva S’holder Litig. Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275,
1285–86 (Del. 2007).
29
See Dover Hist. Soc. v. City of Dover Planning Com’n, 838 A.2d 1103, 1109 (Del. 2003)
(“The party invoking the jurisdiction of a court bears the burden of establishing the
elements of standing.”).
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 7
generally follow the federal standing analysis requiring (1) an injury in fact, (2) that
is causally connected to the challenge action(s), and (3) is redressable by a favorable
decision.30 Standing may also be applied “as a matter of self-restraint to avoid the
rendering of advisory opinions at the behest of parties who are ‘mere
intermeddlers.’” 31 “At the pleading stage, general allegations of injury are sufficient
to withstand a motion to dismiss because it is presume[d] that general allegations
embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” 32
Allstate argues that Little River is a mere intermeddler due to the basic
principle that “[n]on-parties to a contract—even third party beneficiaries—lack
standing to seek reformation.”33 But Little River alleges that it did contract with
Allstate, through the Member as its agent, and Little River is not named in the policy
due to a mutual mistake. Under the well-pled facts, Little River has pled a
cognizable claim that it is a party to the policy, not a third-party beneficiary or mere
intermeddler. 34
30
Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc., 250 A.3d 842, 852 (Del. Ch. 2020).
31
Stuart Kingston, Inc. v. Robinson, 596 A.2d 1378, 1382 (Del. 1991).
32
Burkhart v. Genworth Fin., Inc., 250 A.3d at 852 (citations and quotation marks omitted)
(alteration in original).
33
In re Pantalone, 2011 WL 6357794, at *2 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2011) (citations omitted).
34
Cf. In re Pantalone, 2011 WL 6357794, at *1-*2 (finding the petitioner did not have
standing to seek reformation of a mortgage when he was “not a party to the mortgage or
the loan it secured” and he “has no interest in the underlying property”); Gonzalez-
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 8
Turning to the three factors in the federal standing analysis, I find Little River
has adequately pled an injury to the Property, which it owns, and that injury is
connected to the challenged action—Allstate denying coverage. The issue that gives
me pause is whether the injury is redressable. Allstate argues it is not because the
underlying policy is unenforceable under 18 Del. C. § 2706, which provides: “No
contract of insurance of property . . . shall be enforceable as to the insurance except
for the benefit of persons having an insurable interest in the things insured as at the
time of the loss.”35 Per Allstate, because the named insured on the policy (the
Member) does not have an insurable interest, the policy is not enforceable and it
cannot be reformed. I disagree that this presents a basis on which to dismiss.
Little River has plead a cognizable claim that both parties intended Little
River to be the named insured under the policy and it was through a mutual mistake
that Little River was not so named. If Little River succeeds on this claim, the policy
Rodriquez v. Soto, 2021 WL 1030179, at *5-*6 (Del. Super. Mar. 15, 2021) (finding a
former employee did not have standing to reform a contract to which he “was not the
contracting party” and for which he “made no decisions regarding the coverage he now
wishes to reform”); Harner v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6721765, at *3 (Del. Super.
Dec. 12, 2018) (“A policy purchased through a corporation or an LLC is the company’s
insurance policy, and the individual conducting the transaction is an agent for the business
entity.”) (emphasis in original).
35
18 Del. C. § 2706(a).
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 9
could be reformed nunc pro tunc to reflect the parties’ shared intent at that time of
contracting.36
Finally, Allstate argues that reformation cannot be used to create “a new
contract with new parties.”37 In theory, I agree. Reformation works to cure an error
that occurred in memorializing the parties’ prior agreement. If the parties did not
agree to insure Little River for damage to the Property, reformation cannot create
such an obligation. But Little River adequately pled that the parties had a prior
understanding and the written policy mistakenly named the Member and the
Member’s husband, instead of Little River. 38
36
See Colvocoresses v. W. S. Wasserman Co., 28 A.2d 588, 589 (Del. Ch. 1942) (“The
very purpose of reformation by a Court of Equity is to make an erroneous instrument
express correctly the real agreement between the parties[.]). In so holding, I recognize the
important policy considerations underlying the insurable interest requirement. See
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goerlitz, 2001 WL 845703, at *4 (Del. Super. Jun. 29, 2001)
(explaining the policy behind insurable interest requirements, including “to protect against
societal waste and to avoid the danger in allowing persons without an insurable interest to
purchase insurance, because those persons might then intentionally destroy lives or
property”) (citations omitted). But, here, Little River has pled a cognizable claim that Little
River was the owner of the Property and the intended insured. If there was such a mutual
mistake, reformation may cure. But, if Little River cannot prove this mistake and prior
understanding by clear and convincing evidence, the reformation claim would fail on the
merits. Cf. In re TIBCO Software Inc. S’holders Litig., 2015 WL 6155894, at *13 (Del.
Ch. Oct. 20, 2015).
37
D.I. 10 p.3.
38
See, e.g., D.I. 1 ¶¶ 21-23, 29.
Little River Landing LLC v. Allstate Vehicle and Prop. Ins. Co.,
C.A. No. 2021-0012-SEM
August 31, 2021
Page 10
Viewing the factual averments in Little River’s favor, I find Little River has
pled a reasonably conceivable claim for reformation. To prevail on its reformation
claim, Little River will ultimately need to demonstrate, through clear and convincing
evidence, “the parties came to a specific prior understanding that differed materially
from the written agreement.” 39 Time—and further fact finding—will tell if the
written policy should be reformed; at this stage, Little River’s claims should survive.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I find that Little River has pled a reasonably
conceivable claim for reformation. Whether Little River will ultimately succeed
remains to be seen. I recommend the Motion be denied. This is my final report in
this matter and exceptions may be filed under Court of Chancery Rule 144.
Respectfully,
/s/ Selena E. Molina
Master in Chancery
39
Cerberus Intern., Ltd. v. Apollo Mgmt., L.P., 794 A.2d 1141, 1152 (Del. 2002).