The defendants brought a motion under rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim alleging conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment arising from allegedly false insurance assessment claims.
The court applied the “plain and obvious” test for striking pleadings and held that the conspiracy claim was redundant under the merger doctrine where the same damages were claimed for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Claims against the individual defendants were also struck due to insufficient pleaded facts establishing personal tortious conduct separate from the corporate defendants.
However, the court found the pleadings sufficiently disclosed causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment when read generously.
Leave was granted to amend the statement of claim.
