Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
Filed March 25, 2008
Cite as 06-55936

Decision on Motion to Dismiss, Reversed and Remanded

This instant suit on insurance coverage and bad faith arose out of two law suits filed in California State by:

1. John Densmore (Densmore Lawsuit) who is the former drummer for The Doors; and


2. the parents of Jim Morrison who is the former vocalist of the band and the parents of Pamela Courson who is Morrison’s late wife (“Courson Lawsuit”).

Said underlying suits were filed against Manzarek who is the founding member of said rock band, DTI and the other members of Manzarek’s band at the time of the filing of the lawsuits.

When the Manzarek and DTI informed St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul) of the existence of said underlying law suits, St. Paul notified them that both Policies contained Field of Entertainment Limitation Endorsement (“FELE”) and as a consequence, it denied coverage and refused to defend Desmond suit as the Policies did not obligate it to defend or indemnify Densmore Lawsuit.

Manzarek and DTI filed their amended complaint to contain the following claims:

1. breach of contract;


2. breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and


3. declaratory relief.

St. Paul filed a motion to dismiss on the amended claim which the district court granted with prejudice.

On appeal, Manzarek and DTI assailed the district court’s order by contending that the district court erred in:

1. holding that no duty to defend existed under the Policies;


2. dismissing their claim for breach of contract; and


3. dismissing their claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

They also alleged that the district court should have permitted them the opportunity to amend their complaint to state a viable claim for relief against St. Paul.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed district court’s decision in granting motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

1. the underlying complaints of Manzarek and DTI raised at least the potential for coverage under the operative insurance policies; and


2. the district court abused its discretion by not giving plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint and dismissed it with prejudice without even considering viability of any potential amendments. The record did not evidence any other reason to deny leave to amend.

With the above findings, the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.