RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, the Estate of Millie Ann McDaniels (the "Estate"), brings this action against defendant Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. ("Liberty Mutual"), seeking damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. See Compl. [Dkt. #1]. Before the Court is defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record herein, the Motion of Defendant Liberty Mutual Group Inc. to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint ("Def.'s Mot.") [Dkt. #4] is GRANTED.
The Estate is seeking damages arising from defendant's alleged failure to timely and accurately pay workers' compensation benefits. In 1983, Fletcher McDaniels, an employee of John H. Hampshire, Inc., was exposed to asbestos in the course of his employment. Compl. ¶ 4. Thereafter, Mr. McDaniels applied for and was granted workers' compensation benefits from Liberty Mutual, his employer's insurance carrier.
On December 19, 2011, plaintiff filed this suit against Liberty Mutual in Superior Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the amount owed and asserting four causes of action arising from the alleged underpayment. See Compl. Plaintiff claims that defendant owed the Estate a total of $438,652.96, Compl. ¶ 14, and thus, still owes the Estate "$288,158.81, plus interest accruing since 1983," Compl. ¶¶ 20, 26, 32, 38. According to plaintiff, as a result of Liberty Mutual's underpayment of benefits, defendant was negligent and breached its fiduciary duty, its contractual duty, and its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing "to make COLA payments in accordance with District of Columbia law and/or regulation," Compl. ¶¶ 19, 25, 31, 37, causing "Mrs. McDaniels [to be] unable to meet her basic living needs" and ultimately "caus[ing] or contribut[ing] to her untimely death in July 2010," Compl. ¶¶ 21, 27, 33, 39.
Liberty Mutual removed the action to this Court on February 8, 2012, Notice of Removal [Dkt. #1], and filed a motion to dismiss on February 13, 2012, Def.'s Mot. Defendant argues that plaintiffs tort claims (Counts I, III, and IV) should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because these claims arise out of Liberty Mutual's failure to pay accurate workers' compensation benefits pursuant to § 32-1506 of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act"), and therefore, the Department of Employment Services ("DOES") has primary jurisdiction. See Def.'s Mem. at 6-7. Defendant contends that plaintiffs breach of contract claim (Count II) should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because no contractual relationship existed between Mrs. McDaniels and Liberty Mutual.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citation omitted). "[A] plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (alteration in original) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, "the court need not accept inferences drawn by plaintiff[] if such inferences are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint." Kowal v. MCI Commcns. Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994). When facing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction exists. Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C.Cir.2008). The court may, however, consider "any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the court] may take judicial notice." EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier
The District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for employees suffering from work-related injuries.
Finally, plaintiffs breach of contract claim must also be dismissed. To prevail on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must establish "(1)a valid contract between the parties; (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract; (3) a breach of that duty; and (4) damages caused by breach." Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181, 187 (D.C.2009). "An insurance policy establishes a contractual relationship between the company and its policy holder," Choharis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 961 A.2d 1080, 1087 (D.C. 2008), but, "[o]ne who is not a party to a contract nonetheless may sue to enforce its provisions if the contracting parties intend the third party to benefit directly thereunder," W. Union Tel. Co. v. Massman Constr. Co., 402 A.2d 1275, 1277 (D.C. 1979). Thus, because neither Mrs. McDaniels, her beneficiaries, or her husband were ever a party to the contract at issue, nor was Mrs. McDaniels or her beneficiaries third-party beneficiaries of the contract,
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Motion of Defendant Liberty Mutual Group Inc. to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint [Dkt. #4] and dismisses the action in its entirety. An order consistent with this decision accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this 31st day of August 2012, it is hereby