Insurers’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Granted, In Part, Denied in Part

    The insurers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was successful, in part, for failing to properly name one insurer.   Landings Yacht, Golf and Tennis Club, Inc. v. Swiss Re Corp. Solutions America, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210815 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2022).

    In 2019, two insurers, Peleus Insurance Company and North American Capacity Insurance Company (“NAC”), issued a policy to Landings. The policy covered funds transfer fraud. In 2021, two unauthorised withdrawals occurred. First, four unauthorised users took money from Landings’ bank account. Second, unauthorised users, through a payroll company (“Paychex”), requested and received money from the account. Landings alleged that Psyche purported to act on behalf of and impersonated Landings.

    Landings submitted a claim for unauthorised withdrawals. The insurers denied coverage. Landings sued for breach of contract. The insurers sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Landings included an improper party (Swiss) and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because it failed to plead funds transfer fraud under the policy. 

    Swiss did not issue the policy. Landings argued that NAC was not an active entity in Florida, and it should not be required to “navigate a very confusing web of corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates to determine who was who.” Landings cited no authority to support this proposition. As a party asserting a claim, Landings was required to name the proper parties to the action. Landings did not state a claim against Swiss because Swiss was not a proper party. The motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted to the extent that it dismissed the case against Swiss.

    The court then determined whether a claim had been made against the other insurers. The allegations about the first set of withdrawals were sufficient. Landings alleged the unauthorised users directed withdrawals from the account and purported to be Landings. The allegations on the second set of withdrawals were also sufficient. Landings alleged that additional unauthorised users, via Paychex, made unauthorised requests for withdrawals. Contrary to the insurers’ arguments, Landings alleged that Paychex impersonated one of its vendors. 

    Therefore, the insurers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in party as to Swiss, but was denied as to the other insurers.