Proper Inconsistent Pleading Defeats Policy Anti-Assignment Condition

By Barry Zalma on May 6, 2026

Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition

Post number 5345

See the video at https://rumble.com/v79fjia-proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-anti-assignment-condition.html and at https://youtu.be/u3xWGHvEaz4

State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition

In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.

Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for alleged bad faith conduct by State Farm.

Subsequently, Treadway filed an Amended Complaint adding M1SRJT as co-plaintiff, asserting M1SRJT’s status as assignee of the insurance claim.

THE POLICY

The State Farm Policy’s Assignment of Claim condition Provided:

“Assignment to another party of any of your rights or duties under this policy regarding any claim, or any part of any claim, whether the assignment is made prior to or after the loss, will be void. We will not recognize any assignment, unless we give our written consent. However, once you have complied with all policy provisions, you may assign to another party, in writing, payment of claim proceeds otherwise payable to you.^“

LAW

State Farm’s policy contains an anti-assignment clause, stating that the assignment of claims or rights under the policy is void unless State Farm provides written consent, except for the payment of claim proceeds after compliance with all policy provisions.

State Farm, in its Answer, denied M1SRJT’s status as assignee and raised defenses including lack of standing for Treadway (as she had assigned her rights before filing suit) and prescription (statute of limitations) barring Plaintiffs’ claims.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

State Farm moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing and that the assignment was void due to the policy’s anti-assignment clause. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, contending that the assignment was valid and that M1SRJT, as assignee, could pursue the claim for damages.

CONCLUSION

The Court denied State Farm’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, allowing Plaintiffs’ claims to proceed. The denial indicates that the Court found sufficient grounds for Plaintiffs to pursue their claims, either as assignor (Treadway) or assignee (M1SRJT), despite State Farm’s defenses based on the anti-assignment clause and standing.

A motion brought pursuant to Rule 12(c) is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.

The “material fact” at issue here is whether Treadway assigned the insurance claim to M1SRJT before filing the lawsuit. Contrary to State Farm’s assertion, that fact is very much “in dispute.” For one, State Farm denied the allegation in its Answer. What’s more, State Farm’s Answer excerpted from the insurance policy at issue, which expressly states that State Farm will “not recognize any assignment, unless we give our written consent.”

The pleadings here-which include State Farm’s Answer-squarely present the issue of assignment as a disputed question.

Any inconsistencies found in the factual and legal theories presented in the parties’ pleadings are permissible under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d), which allows a party to “state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.” Indeed, under that rule, a party “may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones.

Fortunately for both parties, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the pleading of such apparent inconsistencies any inconsistency failing to admit the Agreement is a valid enforceable contract while also asserting claims based on breach of the Agreement is not a valid reason for dismissal. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

ZALMA OPINION

Inconsistent pleadings worked against a series of answers to the inconsistent pleading with State Farm denying the assignment and then seeking to dismiss because of its anti-assignment clause. Of course, State Farm can change its pleading and admit the truth of the alleged assignment and them move for summary judgment.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.