The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRUCE O’NEIL CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-4779
SAGESURE INSURANCE MANAGERS, SECTION: “G”(5)
LLC
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant SageSure Insurance Managers, LLC’s (“SageSure”)
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.1 SageSure argues that it should be dismissed as a Defendant in this
case because it did not insure Plaintiff Bruce O’Neil (“Plaintiff”).2 SageSure also argues that
Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend the Complaint to add the correct insurance company,
Occidental Fire and Casualty Company of North Carolina (“Occidental”) in this Hurricane Ida
case because it would be futile, as the prescription period for Hurricane Ida claims has expired.3
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.4 Having considered the motion, the record, and the applicable
law, the Court grants SageSure’s motion in part to the extent that Plaintiff’s claims against
SageSure are dismissed but the Court need not rule on the futility of Plaintiff potentially adding
Occidental as a defendant.
1 Rec. Doc. 8.
2 Rec. Doc. 8-1 at 4–6.
3 Id. at 6–9.
4 SageSure filed the motion on October 24, 2023, and SageSure set the motion for submission on November
15, 2023. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any opposition to the motion was due on November 7, 2023.
I. Background
This litigation arises out of property damage caused by Hurricane Ida on August 29, 2021.5
Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on August 29, 2023 against SageSure to recover damages
related to his property at 6950 and 6952 Canal Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70124 (“Property”).6
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Hurricane Ida caused “extensive damage” to the Property.7
Plaintiff further alleges that SageSure was the issuer of an insurance policy, Number LAP4560696
(“Policy”), that covers the Property.8 Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim and claims for
violations of Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1892 and Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1973 as a result
of SageSure’s failure to timely pay insurance proceeds due under the Policy.9
II. Law and Analysis
A. Whether SageSure must be dismissed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed “for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”10 A motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim is “viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.”11 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.”12 The “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
5 Rec. Doc. 1 at 2–5.
6 Id. at 2.
7 Id. at 3.
8 Id. at 2.
9 Id. at 5–7.
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
11 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982).
12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
the speculative level.”13 The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must
offer more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause
of action.14 That is, the complaint must offer more than an “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation.”15 Although a court must accept all “well-pleaded facts” as true, a court
need not accept legal conclusions as true.16 “[L]egal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, [but] they must be supported by factual allegations.”17 Similarly, “[t]hreadbare recitals
of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements” will not suffice.18
If the factual allegations are insufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, or an
“insuperable” bar to relief exists, the claim must be dismissed.”19
The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against SageSure as the Policy Plaintiff
references in the Complaint does not name SageSure as an insurer.20 Rather, the Policy only names
Occidental Fire and Casualty Company of North Carolina as an insurer.21 In addition, Plaintiff did
not file a response opposing the instant motion or raise any argument as to why SageSure should
(internal quotation marks omitted).
13 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Put another way, a plaintiff must plead facts that allow the court to draw a
“reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
14 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 677–78.
17 Id. at 679.
18 Id. at 678.
19 Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007); Moore v. Metro. Human Serv. Dist., No. 09-6470,
2010 WL 1462224, at * 2 (E.D. La. Apr. 8, 2010) (Vance, J.) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)).
20 Rec. Doc. 8-2.
21 Id.
not be dismissed. Therefore, SageSure must be dismissed as a Defendant.
B. Whether Plaintiff is barred from amending the complaint to add Occidental
SageSure also argues that Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend the Complaint to name
the correct insurer, Occidental, because it would be “futile as Plaintiff’s claims against Occidental
have been prescribed and an Amended Complaint adding a new defendant … would not ‘relate
back’ to the original lawsuit.”22 To be clear, Plaintiff has not sought to add Occidental as a
defendant or otherwise sought leave of Court to amend the Complaint.23 Further, Plaintiff does not
oppose SageSure’s instant motion. The Court need not address this issue at this time because the
Court does not issue advisory opinions.
III. Conclusion
Because SageSure is not the insurer that Plaintiff alleges issued his Policy in the Complaint
and because Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s claims against SageSure
must be dismissed.
Accordingly,
22 Id. at 6.
23 Plaintiff has not filed any motions or amended pleadings since he filed the Complaint on August 29, 2023.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SageSure Insurance Managers, LLC’s 12(b)(6) Motion
to Dismiss *4 is GRANTED in part to the extent that Plaintiff Bruce O’Neil’s claims against
Defendant SageSure Insurance Managers, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The
motion is DISMISSED in part to the extent that the Court declines to rule on the futility of Plaintiff
potentially adding Occidental as a defendant.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this! th day of December, 2023.
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 Rec. Doc. 8.