Migues v. State Farm Insurance Companies Fire Claims

Background

Dustin Migues, representing himself, sued State Farm General Insurance Company, which he had incorrectly named as “State Farm Insurance Companies Fire Claims.” The complaint appeared to allege that State Farm denied claims under a renters insurance policy. The policy identified the covered residence as 333 12th St. Apt. 709 in San Francisco.

Migues alleged that the residence was purchased by San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and that he could not return because of actions by San Francisco city agencies and contractors. He sought compensation under “Coverage C—Loss of Use due to housing realities in San Francisco,” while also referring to a loss arising from “Riot or Civil Commotion.”

Reason for dismissal

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. A complaint must include enough factual allegations to make the claimed wrongdoing legally plausible.

The court found that the complaint did not allege a riot or civil commotion, an insured loss, or that the residence became uninhabitable. Those facts were required for the loss-of-use coverage Migues appeared to invoke. The complaint also did not allege that Migues incurred personal liability or identify a state of emergency relevant to the additional coverage he mentioned.

The complaint labeled one claim “Bad Faith Insurance Claim,” but did not allege facts showing that State Farm denied a claim in bad faith. The court also found that “hate crime” was not supported by factual allegations and would not itself be a civil claim. Migues’s opposition papers did not provide an intelligible explanation showing why State Farm had to pay under the renters policy.

Ruling

The court granted State Farm’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. Because Migues was representing himself, Judge Richard Seeborg gave him an opportunity to file an amended complaint by April 21, 2023. The order stated that if no amended complaint was filed, the action would be closed without further notice. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.