Yates v. Foremost Farmers Direct Property and Casualty Insurance

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jackie F. Yates
v. Case No. 25-cv-338-LM-AJ
Foremost Farmers Direct
Property and Casualty Insurance
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff Jackie Yates initiated this
action against Defendant Foremost Farmers Direct Property and
Casualty Insurance (“Foremost”), arising out of Foremost’s
denial of Ms. Yates’ claim related to water damage at her
property. See Doc. 1-2 (Complaint). She seeks payment for the
reassessment of the damage to her property, damage to the
property, and loss of her personal property. Id.
Pending before the court is Ms. Yates’ motion for summary
judgment. See Doc. No. 20. Therein, Ms. Yates contends that
Foremost committed fraud by accepting funds to cover her
homeowner’s insurance policy from her mortgagee, Saint Mary’s
Bank. Id. ¶ 1. She argues that Foremost and Saint Mary’s Bank
violated her civil rights by entering into a contract without
consulting her. Id. ¶ 3. Foremost objects to Ms. Yates’
motion.1 See Doc. No. 23.
1 To the extent Foremost’s objection also seeks relief in
the form of summary judgment, the district judge should deny
Case 1:25-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 27 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Background2
Ms. Yates’ property in Milton, New Hampshire suffered from
water damage caused by a broken water line from her dishwasher.
See Doc. No. 1-2 ¶¶ 3–4; Doc. No. 23 ¶¶ 4–5. The parties
dispute the cause of the water line damage. Foremost contends
that it was caused by Ms. Yates’ failure to properly heat the
premises. Doc. No. 23 ¶ 18.
The only currently pending claim in this matter arises out
of Ms. Yates’ contention that Foremost wrongfully denied
coverage of her claim related to the water damage to the
property. Ms. Yates has attempted to amend her complaint to add
a claim for fraud, asserting that Saint Mary’s Bank allegedly
contracted with Foremost to insure Ms. Yates’ property without
her knowledge. Ms. Yates failed to allege that claim with the
requisite particularity. For that reason, the court ordered her
to file a more detailed description of the claim. See Doc. No.
22. The current deadline for that filing is March 27, 2026.
that request for relief. See L.R. 7.1(a) (“All motions must
contain the word ‘motion’ in the title. Filers shall not
combine multiple motions seeking separate and distinct relief
into a single filing.”).
2 Foremost asks the court to take the facts contained within
its requests for admissions as admitted because Ms. Yates failed
to timely respond to the requests. Because the court extended
the deadline for Ms. Yates’ response to Foremost’s requests for
admission, the court declines to deem the facts admitted.
Case 1:25-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 27 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Discussion
Ms. Yates’ motion for summary judgment focuses solely on
the allegedly fraudulent contract between Saint Mary’s Bank and
Foremost. Her motion does not address Foremost’s denial of
coverage. Because Ms. Yates’ fraud claim is not pending before
the court, the court cannot entertain a motion for summary
judgment seeking relief on that claim. See Daroczi v. Vt. Ctr.
for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing, Inc., No. 02-440-JM, 2004 WL
180250, at *9 (D.N.H. Jan. 28, 2004) (“Since the Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment addresses a claim that was not pled
in this action, there is no basis for granting the Defendant
summary judgment.”); HayJo S.A. de CV v. Sponge-Jet, Inc., No.
14-cv-196-JD, 2015 WL 9459918, at *3 (D.N.H. Dec. 23, 2015)
(same).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny
Ms. Yates’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 20) and deny
Foremost’s request for summary judgment to be entered in its
favor (Doc. No. 23).
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. Failure to file any objection within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the district court's Order. See
Case 1:25-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 27 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016). Only those issues raised in written objections to this
Report and Recommendation “are subject to review in the district
court,” and any issues “not preserved by such objection are
precluded on appeal.” Id. (citations omitted).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 24, 2026
cc: Jackie F. Yates, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:25-cv-00338-LM-AJ Document 27 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 4