Fleming v. Corporation Service Company et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MICHAEL-ZAHIR – DAVID:
FLEMING,
Plaintiff, pro se,
v.
CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 24-cv-3335- LKG
Dated: February 4, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In this civil action, the Plaintiff pro se, Michael-Zahir – David: Fleming, challenges the
denial of an insurance claim related to certain damages to his home by the Defendant, Liberty
Mutual Personal Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”).1 See generally ECF No. 1. On July 1,
2025, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Liberty Mutual’s partial motion to dismiss the
complaint (the “July 1, 2025, Decision”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF Nos. 30 and
31. Liberty Mutual has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s July 1, 2025, Decision,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. ECF No. 32.2 No hearing is necessary to resolve the motion. See
L.R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Liberty Mutual’s
motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 32).
Factual Background
In this civil action, the Plaintiff challenges the denial of an insurance claim related to
certain damages to his home Liberty Mutual. A detailed factual background for the case is set
forth in the Court’s July 1, 2025, Decision. ECF No. 30.
1 While the complaint identifies the Corporation Service Company as the Defendant in this matter, the
parties agree that the proper Defendant in this case is Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. See generally
ECF No. 1. See also ECF No. 17 at 1 n.1.
2 The Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.
Case 8:24-cv-03335-LKG Document 43 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Relevant to the pending motion for reconsideration, the Court held in the July 1, 2025,
Decision, that the Plaintiff states a plausible lack of good faith claim in Count II of the
complaint. ECF No. 30 at 7. Specifically, the Court declined to dismiss the Plaintiff’s lack of
good faith claim, upon the grounds that: (1) the Plaintiff, an insurance claimant, can bring a
claim for lack of good faith in the adjustment of claims under Maryland law under Md. Code
Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1701; (2) such claims must first be adjudicated before the Maryland
Insurance Administration (the “MIA”) under Md. Code, Ins. § 27-1001(d)(1); and (3) the
“evidence before the Court did not establish that the Plaintiff failed to bring a lack of good faith
claim before the MIA before commencing this civil action.” Id.
On July 17, 2025, the Office of the Insurance Commissioner within the MIA entered a
memorandum opinion and final order on the Plaintiff’s administrative complaint filed against
Liberty Mutual. ECF No. 32-2. On July 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a “Letter of Appeal and
Notice for Judicial Review” of that decision with the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County,
Maryland. ECF No. 32-3.
On August 1, 2025, Liberty Mutual filed its motion for reconsideration, arguing that the
Court should reconsider its ruling on Count II of the complaint, because: (1) on July 17, 2025,
the MIA entered a memorandum opinion and final order that concluded Liberty Mutual acted
with good faith in its handling of Plaintiff’s claim; (2) on July 18, 2025, the Plaintiff submitted a
“Letter of Appeal and Notice for Judicial Review” to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s
County seeking review of the final administrative decision of the MIA; and (3) because the
Plaintiff has elected to challenge the MIA’s decision through the administrative process, he is
precluded from pursuing his lack of good faith claim in this Court. ECF No. 32 at ¶¶ 3-5. And
so, Liberty Mutual requests that the Court: (1) reconsider its determination on Count II of the
complaint and (2) grant Liberty Mutual’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s lack of good faith
claim in Count II of the complaint. The Plaintiff has not filed a response to Liberty Mutual’s
motion.
Legal Standards
A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b) “governs motions for reconsideration of orders that do not
constitute final judgments in a case.” In re Marriot Int’l, Inc., No. 19-md-2879, 2021 WL
Case 8:24-cv-03335-LKG Document 43 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 6

3
1516028, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 16, 2021) (citing Fayetteville Invs. v. Commercial Builders, Inc.,
936 F.2d 1462, 1472 (4th Cir. 1991)). Rule 54(b) provides that:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates
fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all
the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties
and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not
articulated a standard of review for a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration, but it has “explained
that the restrictive standards of Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions for reconsideration are not
binding for Rule 54(b) motions.” In re Marriot Int’l, Inc., 2021 WL 1516028, at *2 (citing
Fayetteville Invs., 936 F.2d at 1472). And so, “a district court retains the power to reconsider
and modify its interlocutory judgments at any time before final judgment” with the “goal . . . to
reach the correct judgment under law.” Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d
612, 618-19 (D. Md. 2013) (citations omitted).
Analysis
Liberty Mutual has not shown that reconsideration of the July 1, 2025, Decision is
warranted. In its motion for reconsideration, Liberty Mutual argues that because he has elected
to challenge the MIA’s decision through the administrative process, the Plaintiff is precluded
from pursuing his lack of good faith claim. ECF No. 32 at ¶¶ 3-5. While it appears that the
Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies at the time he filed the complaint, the
evidence provided by Liberty Mutual in its motion for reconsideration shows that the Plaintiff
has since exhausted his administrative remedies with regards to this claim.
A plaintiff who wants to pursue a claim for failure to act in good faith under Section 3–
1701 of the Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., must first exhaust certain administrative
remedies. Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27–1001 (“[A] person may not bring or pursue an action under
§ 3–1701 of the Courts Article in a court unless the person complies with this section.”). Given
this, “a party may not file an action under [Section 3–1701] before the date of a final decision
under § 27–1001 of the Insurance Article.” Md. Code Ann., Cts & Jud. Proc., § 3–1701; see also
Thompson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 A.3d 112, 114 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010)
(“Before filing a ‘civil action’ for damages under [Section 3–1701], an insured must file a
complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA) and obtain a final decision from
Case 8:24-cv-03335-LKG Document 43 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 6

4
that agency after a ‘paper hearing’ or from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after a
contested case hearing.”); Walker v. Ctr. Ins. Co., No. 187, Sept. Term, 2021, 2022 WL 541081,
at *5 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 23, 2022) (“Once [Section 27-1001’s] administrative remedies
have been exhausted, the aggrieved party may file an action pursuant to § 3-1701.”). A decision
becomes “final” for exhaustion purposes when: (1) “the Office of Administrative Hearings”
holds a contested case hearing and renders “final decision” after a party appeals an “adverse
decision” by the MIA; or (2) “[i]f no administrative hearing is requested . . . the decision issued
by the [MIA] shall become a final decision.” Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27–1001(f)(1)-(2); see also
Thompson, 9 A.3d at 114.
In this case, it is undisputed that there was no final decision on the Plaintiff’s lack of
good faith claim at the time the complaint was filed. Notably, the Plaintiff fails to allege in the
complaint that he had exhausted his administrative remedies under Section 27-1001 and that a
final decision had been rendered by the MIA, or the Office of Administrative Hearings (the
“OAH”), on his Section 3–1701 claim. See ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 13-16. The evidence before the
Court also shows that, at the time the Plaintiff filed the complaint, he had already participated in
a de novo hearing on October 8, 2023, before the OAH and that the OAH had not yet rendered its
final decision. See ECF No. 32-2 at 1-2; see also ECF No. 20 at 8 (Plaintiff arguing that the
“MIA is reviewing the claim, which is currently at the appeals stage.”). Given this, the Plaintiff
had not exhausted his administrative remedies for his lack of good faith claim before filing the
complaint in this case. See Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27–1001(c) and (f)(1)-(2). And so, the Court
agrees with Liberty Mutual that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for lack of good faith claim
under Section 3–1701 at the time the complaint was filed.
But, the evidence provided by Liberty Mutual in its motion for reconsideration shows that
the Plaintiff has now exhausted his administrative remedies. In this regard, the OAH entered a
memorandum opinion and final order on the Plaintiff’s administrative complaint on July 17,
2025. See ECF No. 32-2. Given this final decision, the Plaintiff has now exhausted his
administrative remedies for his lack of good faith claim. See Md. Code Ann., Ins. § 27–1001(c)
and (f)(1)-(2); see also Thompson, 9 A.3d at 114 (“Before filing a ‘civil action’ for damages
under [Section 3–1701], an insured must file a complaint with the Maryland Insurance
Administration (MIA) and obtain a final decision from that agency after a ‘paper hearing’ or
from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after a contested case hearing.”).
Case 8:24-cv-03335-LKG Document 43 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Liberty Mutual argues in its motion for reconsideration that the Plaintiff, nonetheless,
cannot pursue his lack of good faith claim in this Court, because he has appealed the OAH’s
decision. See ECF No. 32 at ¶¶ 4-5; see also ECF No. 32-3 (“Letter of Appeal and Notice for
Judicial Review”). But, Section 3–1701 provides that the Plaintiff may pursue a lack of good
faith claim after a “final decision under § 27–1001 of the Insurance Article.” See Md. Code
Ann., Cts & Jud. Proc., § 3–1701(c)(1); see also Thompson, 9 A.3d at 114 (“Before filing a ‘civil
action’ for damages under [Section 3–1701], an insured must file a complaint with the Maryland
Insurance Administration (MIA) and obtain a final decision from that agency after a ‘paper
hearing’ or from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) after a contested case hearing.”).
Liberty Mutual also provides no authority to support its argument that an appeal of the OAH’s
“final decision” to a circuit court precludes the Plaintiff from pursuing his lack of good faith
claim under Section 3–1701 in this Court. See ECF No. 32 at ¶¶ 3-5.3 Given this, the Plaintiff
has exhausted his lack of good faith claim. And so, Liberty Mutual has not shown that the Court
should reconsider its holding that the Plaintiff states a plausible lack of good faith claim in Count
II of the complaint.
3 Liberty Mutual’s reliance on the Letter Order in Mbanusi v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 23-0777-DLB (D.
Md. April 10, 2025) (ECF No. 94), is misplaced. There, the Court had already dismissed the plaintiff’s
failure to act in good faith claim, because the plaintiff brought the lawsuit before the OAH had rendered a
final decision on the plaintiff’s administrative complaint. Mbanusi v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 23-0777-
DLB (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2023) (ECF No. 18). The Court in the subsequent Order cited by Liberty Mutual
held that it “did not have jurisdiction over [the plaintiff’s] request for relief,” which was to stay the
administrative law judge’s final order. See id. at 2. In this case, the Plaintiff is not asking the Court to
stay, or review, the OAH’s final decision. See generally ECF No. 1. And so, Liberty Mutual does not
provide support for its argument that the Plaintiff cannot pursue his lack of in good faith claim in this
Court, now that the OAH has rendered a final decision, while separately appealing that decision in the
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
Case 8:24-cv-03335-LKG Document 43 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the Court DENIES Liberty Mutual’s motion for reconsideration
of the Court’s July 1, 2025, Decision, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (ECF No. 32).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Lydia Kay Griggsby
LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY
United States District Judge
Case 8:24-cv-03335-LKG Document 43 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 6