McMahon v. Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest

Background

Patrick McMahon filed the complaint in San Mateo Superior Court on May 15, 2025. He sought damages arising from alleged contractual breaches by his insurers. The defendants removed the case to federal court.

Geico Insurance moved to dismiss McMahon’s claims against it. Geico argued that it was not a party to McMahon’s home insurance contract and, at most, acted as an insurance agent that sold the policy. Based on that position, Geico argued that it could not be liable for breach of contract, failure or delay in payment, or bad-faith claims arising from the insurance policy. Geico also argued that McMahon’s remaining claims against it were derivative of those claims.

McMahon’s Position

McMahon stated that he accepted Geico was acting as an insurance agent, not as an insurer, and was not a party to the insurance contract. He conceded that, because Geico was an insurance agent rather than an insurer, Geico could not be held liable under the contract. McMahon filed a statement of non-opposition asking the court to grant Geico’s motion as to Geico only.

Ruling

The court found it undisputed that Geico served as an insurance agent and was not a party to the insurance policy. Applying binding Ninth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that Geico could not be held liable on McMahon’s claims. The court therefore granted Geico’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Defendant Geico from the case.

The court also terminated as moot McMahon’s administrative motion requesting permission to appear remotely and his motion seeking leave to file a late response to an order to show cause. The opinion does not state whether Geico’s dismissal was with or without prejudice.