The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Court
Plaintiff, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co. ("Atlantic"), brings this diversity action for a declaration that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured, Defendant Theodore Coffey, in an underlying action in the Supreme Court, County of Erie.
Coffey presently seeks leave to file a second amended answer, adding a claim for fraud and reformation of contract. But before Coffey moved for leave to file a second amended answer, Atlantic had moved to dismiss his first amended answer, which contained a similar counterclaim; this Court never had an opportunity to address that motion. Thus, presently before this Court is Coffey's motion for leave to amend and Atlantic's motion to dismiss Coffey's fraud and reformation of contract counterclaim. (Docket Nos. 31, 24.)
The facts of this case are straightforward. Coffey, who has an insurance policy with Atlantic, owns a bar called TJ Coffey's, located in Buffalo, New York. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3,11.) On August 8, 2010, Richard Fuller filed a complaint in state court against Coffey and James Burke alleging that Burke assaulted Fuller while the two were patrons at TJ Coffey's. (Id., ¶ 9.) Fuller seeks damages from Coffey and Burke and, as a result, Coffey requested coverage under his policy. (Id., ¶¶ 10, 11.) But the policy has an exclusion for assault and battery claims, which serves as the basis for Atlantic's claim that it is not obligated to indemnify or defend Coffey. (Second Amended Answer, Exhibits A-C; Docket No. 31-1.)
Atlantic filed a complaint in this Court on March 1, 2011. (Docket No. 1.) Coffey filed his first answer on May 9, 2011. (Docket No. 8.) Atlantic responded with a motion to dismiss on May 31, 2011. (Docket No. 17.) Coffey then amended his answer on June 15, 2011 and, as a consequence, Atlantic filed an amended motion to dismiss on June 27, 2011. (Docket Nos. 22, 24.) On August 10, 2011, Coffey filed a voluntary dismissal of a counterclaim seeking punitive damages. (Docket No. 29.) Thereafter, Coffey filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, seeking to add a claim for reformation of contract. (Docket No. 31.) This Court took the two outstanding motions under consideration without oral argument.
A. Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule15
Rule 15(a)(2) instructs courts to "freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, the court may deny a motion to amend for "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment." Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962)).
"An amendment to a pleading will be futile if a proposed claim could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)." Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir. 2002). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff (or counter-plaintiff) must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L .Ed. 2d 929 (2007); see also Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. In deciding a motion to dismiss or a motion to amend, the court may consider, inter alia, documents that the plaintiff attached to the pleadings, documents referenced in the complaint, and documents that plaintiff relied on in bringing the action. Chambers, 282 F.3d at 152-153.
In this case, Coffey has attached and relied on several insurance policies that are integral to his counterclaim and are thus properly ...