SUSAN C. BUCKLW, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 8).
In deciding a motion to dismiss, the district court is required to view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges the following in his bad faith complaint (Doc. No. 1): Plaintiff was insured under a car insurance policy issued by Defendant at the time that he was involved in a collision with Amy Krupp and her minor child, A.O. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 6, 7). The car accident resulted in Krupp's death and injury to the child. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 7). A lawsuit was filed against Plaintiff in state court for the injuries and death that resulted from the accident, and the jury returned a verdict against Plaintiff for damages exceeding $4 million. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 16 & Ex. B).
Plaintiff contends that Defendant acted in bad faith in failing to settle the claims arising from the car accident. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to accept a reasonable offer and opportunity to settle the case within the policy limits. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 15). Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and good faith in the investigation, negotiation, and settlement of the claims against Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 15). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to: (1) advise him of settlement opportunities, (2) advise him of the probable outcome of the litigation, and (3) warn him of the possibility of an excess judgment and advise him of the steps to take to avoid the same. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 15).
In response to the complaint, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss.
Additionally, Defendant argues that the complaint is technically deficient, because Plaintiff incorrectly alleges the date of the car accident as May 3, 2013, which is a date after the excess judgment was awarded by the jury in the underlying state case. Plaintiff acknowledges the scrivener's error in his response brief and states that the date of the accident was May 11, 2010. Given this technical deficiency, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice and grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is
Furthermore, Defendant seeks alternative relief of a more definite statement. However, Rule 12(b) provides that such a motion must be filed prior to filing an answer. This makes sense, because such a motion is filed when a complaint "is so vague or ambiguous that the [defendant] cannot reasonably prepare a response." Given that Defendant did file an answer, it can hardly be argued that the complaint is so vague or ambiguous that Defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response. As such, Defendant's request for a more definite statement is denied.