The Northern District of Alabama, in Nichols v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., No. 2:09:CV-00840-LSC, 2009 WL 3019785 (N.D.Ala. Sep. 22, 2009) recently dismissed a class action involving an alleged breach of an annuity contract, and found that based on the "plain language of the Contract itself, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts establishing nonperformance amounting to a breach of the Contract."
Plaintiff had alleged that the annuity contract provided that a mortality charge would be collected in exchange for providing a death benefit, and that "Hancock breached the contract by collecting a mortality charge when there is no death benefit provided in the annuity." Id. at *1.
The defendant John Hancock moved to dismiss, and attached to its motion a copy of the annuity contract at issue. Id. at *2. The court recognized the general rule in the Eleventh Circuit that documents outside the complaint are not considered when analyzing a motion to dismiss, but then noted the exception when "a plaintiff refers to a document in it complaint, the document is central to its claim, its contents are not in dispute, and the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss."
Based on its review of the annuity contract, the court concluded that "it is evident that there are no provisions that a mortality charge or any fee would be collected in exchange for a death benefit" and that "[n]othing in the Contract ties any fee solely to the guarantee of a death benefit." Id.
The court rejected plaintiff's assertion that the "mortality risk only includes the risk predicated on the award of a death benefit."
The court relied on this exception to consider the annuity contract, exhibited to John Hancock's motion to dismiss, because the plaintiff referenced the contract in the complaint, and "the plaintiff had not challenged the contents of the document or disputed its authenticity." Id. at *2.
This win for John Hancock is a nice reminder that even where the plaintiff fails to attached the contract at issue --often an impediment to dismissing based on failure to state a claim as well as raising the statute of limitations -- federal courts in every circuit have will consider a document, exhibited to the motion to dismiss, if the authenticity is not an issue and the document is central to plaintiff's claims:
Chmielinski v. Massachusetts, 513 F.3d 309 (1st Cir. 2008) ("In reviewing a rule 12(b)(6) motion we may consider 'documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties; . . . documents central to plaintiffs' claim; [and] documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint.'");
Chambers v. Tim Warner, Inc., 282 F.2d 147 (2nd Cir. 2002) ("[A] plaintiff's reliance on the terms and effect of a document in drafting the complaint is a necessary prerequisite to the court's consideration of the document on a dismissal motion; mere notice or possession is not enough.");
Miller v. Clinton County, 544 F.3d 542 (3rd Cir. 2008) ("A court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document.");
Philips v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp., 572 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. Jul. 13, 2009) ("We also consider documents attached to the complaint . . . as well as those attached to a motion to dismiss, so long as they are central to the complaint and authentic.");
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000) (court may consider materials "referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and . . . central to her claim");
Zibbell v. Michigan Dept. of Human Services, 313 Fed. Appx. 843 (6th Cir. 2009) (relying on exhibits to a motion to dismiss "so long as they are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims contained therein.");
Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993) (court may consider materials "referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and . . . central to her claim");
Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d 539, 546, n. 9 (8th Cir. 1997) ("[A] court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document.");
Parrino v. FHP, Inc.,146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (court may consider documents "upon which the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies.");
GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, 130 F.3d 1381, 1384 (10th Cir. 1997) (court may consider document "referred to in the complaint and central to the plaintiff's claim").