Stoetzel v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HEINRICH STOETZEL, ON BEHALF
OF HIS DECEASED MOTHER
SUSAN STOETZEL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2256
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY
SECTION: “J”(1)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 4) filed by Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance
Company. Plaintiff, Heinrich Stoetzel, on behalf of his deceased mother Susan
Stoetzel, opposed the motion (Rec. Doc. 5), and Defendant USAA filed a reply (Rec.
Doc. 6). Having considered the motion and legal memoranda, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2024, Susan Stoetzel was involved in a car accident when
an underinsured motorist, Seth Harvey, turned into her lane of traffic and struck the
vehicle she was driving. Ms. Stoetzel sustained extensive injuries in the accident,
including a fractured hand, a fractured heel and ankle, and blunt force trauma to the
chest, 	which 	Plaintiff 	claims 	caused acute 	pericardial 	effusion 	and premature
ventricular contractions in her heart and ultimately led to her death several months
later. Mr. Harvey, the other driver in the car accident, was insured by USAA, who
Case 2:25-cv-02256-CJB-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 7

offered a settlement in the full amount of Mr. Harvey’s liability policy, which was
$15,000.00, in November of 2024. Coincidentally, USAA was also Ms. Stoetzel’s
insurer for her uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UIM”) policy, which included
limits of $100,000.00 for medical payments, $500,000.00 for bodily injury, and
$1,000,000.00 under a personal umbrella UIM policy.
According to Plaintiff, by November 25, 2024, USAA had received the first set
of Ms. Stoetzel’s medical records and bills related to the accident, which showed the
“extensive nature” of her injuries, and up to that point, Defendant had paid medical
expenses in the amount of $73,473.66. (Rec. Doc. 1, at ¶ 17). Plaintiff alleges, however,
that USAA failed to tender any payment under the UIM bodily injury or umbrella
policy within thirty days of receiving these records. Next, Plaintiff claims that by
February 26, 2025, Defendant was in possession of over 1,000 pages of medical
records regarding Ms. Stoetzel’s treatment leading up to her death, which Plaintiff
contends was caused “by the chest and cardiac injuries she sustained in the . . .
accident.” Id. at ¶ 18. Also, by that time, Defendant had paid an additional $24,918.39
for Ms. Stoetzel’s medical expenses, for a total of $98,392.05. See id. Again, however,
Plaintiff maintains that Defendant failed to issue an unconditional tender under the
UIM bodily injury or umbrella policy until Plaintiff’s counsel sent two letters to
Defendant in May of 2025. Then, on May 27, 2025, Defendant paid the full limits
($500,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 respectively) owed under Ms. Stoetzel’s UIM bodily
injury and umbrella policies.
Case 2:25-cv-02256-CJB-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 7

As the representative of Ms. Stoetzel’s estate, her son filed the instant suit on
November 4, 2025, claiming that Defendant had breached its duty of good faith and
fair dealing because it failed to issue an unconditional tender under Ms. Stoetzel’s
UIM 	bodily 	injury 	and 	umbrella 	policies 	within 	thirty 	(30) 	days 	of 	receiving
satisfactory proof of her loss, thereby violating Louisiana Revised Statutes § 22:1892.
Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss on December 16, 2025, arguing that
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for bad faith on which relief can be granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead sufficient
facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim
is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The
factual allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. “[D]etailed factual allegations” are
not 	required, 	but 	the 	pleading 	must 	present 	“more 	than 	an 	unadorned, 	the-
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The court must
accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the plaintiff. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
However, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Beavers v. Metro. Life Ins.
Co., 566 F.3d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-02256-CJB-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 7

DISCUSSION
In the instant suit, Plaintiff claims that Defendant breached its statutory duty
of good faith and fair dealing by failing to timely issue unconditional tenders on two
separate 	occasions, 	thereby 	violating 	Louisiana 	Revised 	Statutes 	§ 	22:1892.
Generally, this statute imposes “a duty of good faith and fair dealing” between an
insurer and its insured, which requires “an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly
and promptly and to make a reasonable effort to settle claims with the insured . . . .”
La. Stat. Ann. § 22:1892(I)(1)(a). More specifically, the statute provides that an
insurer must pay an insured’s claim “within thirty days after receipt of satisfactory
proofs 	of 	loss 	from 	the 	insured 	or 	any 	party 	in 	interest.” 	La. 	Stat. 	Ann. 	§
22:1892(A)(1). Furthermore, the statute enables an insured to recover penalties,
attorney fees, and costs when an insurer breaches the duty to timely pay a claim, but
“only if the breach is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.” La.
Stat. Ann. § 22:1892(I)(1)(a).
To establish the insurer’s bad faith and hence recover penalties and fees, a
plaintiff must prove (1) that the insurer failed to make an unconditional tender within
thirty (30) days of receiving satisfactory proof of loss and (2) that the failure was
arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause. The plaintiff bears “the burden of
proving the insurer received satisfactory proof of loss as a predicate to a showing that
the 	insurer 	was 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	or 	without 	probable 	cause.” 	Guidry 	v.
USAgencies Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., 2019-0602 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/27/19), 294 So. 3d 13, 21
(citing Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003-0107 (La. 10/21/03), 857 So. 2d
Case 2:25-cv-02256-CJB-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 7

1012, 1020). The Louisiana Supreme Court has explained that a “satisfactory proof
of loss” is that which is “sufficient to fully apprise the insurer of the insured’s claims,”
and that such proof need not “be in any formal style.” La. Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon
Indem. Co., 2008-0453 (La. 12/2/08), 999 So. 2d 1104, 1119 (citations omitted).
To meet this threshold burden regarding satisfactory proof of loss, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that “the insurer received sufficient facts which fully apprise the
insurer that (1) the owner or operator of the other vehicle involved in the accident
was uninsured or underinsured, (2) that he was at fault, (3) that such fault gave rise
to damages, and (4) establish the extent of those damages.” Guidry, 294 So. 3d at 21.
If a plaintiff successfully establishes that the insurer possessed satisfactory proof of
loss, the plaintiff must then prove that “the insurer was in fact arbitrary, capricious,
or without probable cause in refusing to pay,” which means that the insurer’s refusal
to pay was “vexatious” and “unjustified, without reasonable or probable cause or
excuse.” Id. (citing Reed, 857 So. 2d at 1021; then quoting La. Bag, 999 So. 2d at
1114).
In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant’s primary argument is that Plaintiff failed
to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that Defendant had satisfactory proof of loss
prior to May of 2025, which is when Defendant paid the full limits under Ms.
Stoetzel’s UIM policies.1 Defendant does not dispute that it was in possession of all
1 Defendant cites to five cases to support its proposition that “[c]ourts in this district routinely grant
motions to dismiss bad faith claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) when the plaintiff fails to present
factual allegations to establish proof of loss sufficient for an unconditional tender to issue.” (Rec. Doc.
4-1, at 5 nn. 17–18). However, this is a misrepresentation of the holdings in these cases, and in fact,
in all five of the cases, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied with leave for the plaintiffs to
amend their complaints. Rodriguez v. Occidental Fire & Cas. Co. of N.C., No. 23-5656, 2024 WL
50842, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2024) (Lemelle, J.); Bechet v. Chubb Eur. Grp. SE, No. 23-6192, 2024
Case 2:25-cv-02256-CJB-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 7

of Ms. Stoetzel’s relevant medical records by February 26, 2025, but somehow
Defendant argues that these medical records did not constitute satisfactory proof of
loss, despite the fact that it was these records, along with correspondence from
Plaintiff’s counsel in May of 2025, that provided the basis for Defendant’s full
payments under the policies. Instead, Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s complaint
does not include sufficient facts regarding “what the records actually showed linking
what would otherwise be an unrelated cause of death—cardiac issues—to a car
accident months earlier.” (Rec. Doc. 4-1, at 6).
In his opposition, Plaintiff summarizes the allegations made in the complaint
and clearly demonstrates that the complaint contains well-pleaded facts to address
each of the elements required for a bad faith claim. It is unclear to the Court what
additional facts Defendant seeks. Plaintiff sets out two bad faith claims against
Defendant. For each of these claims in the complaint, Plaintiff first alleges that USAA
was aware that the tortfeasor in this case, who was also USAA’s insured, had liability
limits of only $15,000.00 and was hence underinsured; in fact, by November 25, 2024,
USAA had settled Ms. Stoetzel’s claim under the tortfeasor’s policy, which indicates
USAA’s acknowledgement that the other driver was at fault. Plaintiff also explains
that USAA was in possession of Ms. Stoetzel’s relevant medical records and bills,
WL 3595426, at *5–6 (E.D. La. July 30, 2024) (Long, J.); Schilleci v. Safeport Ins. Co., No. 23-5837,
2024 WL 4346517, at *4 (E.D. La. Sep. 30, 2024) (Long, J.). In two of the five cases, the courts
granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss only in regard to the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory
judgment, but again, the plaintiffs in those cases were permitted to amend their complaints. JMC-
Tran Props. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 22-4727, 2023 WL 2527168, at *5 (E.D. La.
Mar. 15, 2023) (Africk, J.); Omkar, LLC v. amGUARD Ins. Co., 624 F. Supp. 3d 646, 653 (E.D. La.
2022) (Africk, J.). Rather than supporting Defendant’s argument, these cases actually do the
opposite, as they suggest that courts in this district routinely deny motions to dismiss bad faith
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints.
Case 2:25-cv-02256-CJB-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 7

some pertaining to Ms. Stoetzel’s initial injuries and surgery and others concerning
Ms. Stoetzel’s death, which were intended to apprise Defendant that the accident
gave rise to damages and to lay out the extent of those damages. Finally, Plaintiff
clearly alleges that USAA “arbitrarily, capriciously, or without probable cause failed
to tender any payment under the UIM Policy or Umbrella Policy, despite being in
possession of these satisfactory proofs of loss and demand therefore” (Rec. Doc. 1, at
¶¶ 17, 18) within the statutory thirty-day period.
Defendant asserts that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Plaintiff was
required to specify which medical records that were in Defendant’s possession
demonstrated that the car accident caused Ms. Stoetzel’s death. The Court disagrees
and finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance
Company’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
(Rec. Doc. 4) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 16th day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02256-CJB-JVM Document 7 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 7