United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ft. Wllholt. Jr. United States District Judge
matter is before the Court upon Defendant Johnny E.
Bolin's Motion for a More Definite Statement [Docket No.
6]. Plaintiff has responded to the motion [Docket No. 7]. For
the reasons set forth herein, the Court will overrule the
November 26, 2016, certain property at 2224 Jones Creek Road
in West Liberty, Kentucky was destroyed by fire [Complaint,
Docket No. 1, ¶ 3].
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company
("Metropolitan") issued a Homeowners Insurance
Policy, Policy No. 4880443700, with a renewal, issued to
Named Insured Johnny Bolin, with an effective policy term of
December 9, 2015 to December 9, 2016. Id. at
the fire, Bolin made a claim pursuant to the policy.
Id. at ¶ 12.
on December 22, 2017. Metropolitan filed this civil action.
In its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Metropolitan
alleged that there may be no coverage, or only limited
coverage, under the Policy to the extent that Bolin may have
(1) not had an insurable interest in the property, (2)
breached the Policy, (3) failed to cooperate in the
investigation of the claim, and/or (4) concealed or
misrepresented material facts.
response to the Complaint, Bolin filed a motion, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(e), seeking a more definite statement of
the claims alleged.
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides:
A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading
to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so
vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive
pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the
12(e) must be read in conjunction with Rule 8 which sets
forth the general rules of pleading in federal civil actions.
Rule 8(a)(2) requires only notice pleading. Leatherman
v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence &
Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). A complaint
need only provide "short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Thus, to satisfy the pleading
requirements a claimant need only give the defendant
"fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests." Dura Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346 (2005) (internal
of the great liberality of Rule 8, permitting notice
pleading, Rule 12(e) should be called upon only to correct
abject unintelligibility in a pleading, not merely a claimed
lack of detail. Accordingly, a "motion for more definite
statement is designed to strike at unintelligibility rather
than simple want of detail.... [It] must be denied where the
subject complaint is not so vague or ambiguous as to make it
unreasonable to use pretrial devices to fill any possible
gaps in detail." Schwablev. Coates, 2005 WL
2002360, at *1 (N.D.Ohio 2005), see also SKY Technology
Partners, LLC v. Midwest Research Institute, 125
F.Supp.2d 286, 298 (S.D.Ohio 2000) (A "motion ...