Brightman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DANIELLE BRIGHTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-02886-L-BT
ORDER
On January 21, 2026, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 7) was entered, recommending that the court grant Defendant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “State Farm”) Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) (Doc.21) and dismiss Plaintiff Danielle Brightman’s (“Plaintiff” or
“Ms. Brightman”) claims without prejudice. The magistrate judge determined that Defendant’s
Motion should be granted and Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice. No
objections to the Report have been filed, and the 14-day period to object after service of the Report
has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Ms. Brightman did file a
Second Amended Complaint on January 27, 2026, and a request to amend her Complaint (Doc.
32) (“Request”) on February 6, 2026.
Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford determined that Plaintiff’s claims should be
dismissed because “Texas law generally bars an injured third-party from suing a liability insurer
directly.” Report at 1. The court agrees.
Case 3:24-cv-02886-L-BT Document 34 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 2
Plaintiff’s claim arises from an automobile accident, in which, she argues, the other
driver—insured by Defendant—was at fault and Defendant failed to fully pay for her losses. Id.
Magistrate Judge Rutherford notes that “in Texas, an injured party—like Plaintiff—cannot sue the
at-fault party’s insurance company directly except in some cases.” Id. at 2-3 (citing Petty v. Great
W. Cas. Co., 783 F. App’x 414, 415 (5th Cir. 2019)). Such a suit is only permissible “if: (1) the
insurance company is by statute or contract directly liable to the person injured or damaged; or (2)
the tortfeasor’s liability has been finally determined by agreement or judgment.” Id. at 3 (citing
Tex. R. Civ. P. 38(c), 51(b); Angus Chem. Co. v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., 939 S.W.2d 138, 138 (Tex.
1997) (per curiam)). Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant is directly liable to her by statute or
contract; nor did she plead that the other driver’s liability has been determined by a final judgment
or otherwise. Magistrate Judge Rutherford found that Plaintiff has not shown standing to bring a
direct action against Defendant. Id. at 3-4.
As Plaintiff “has already filed an amended complaint, and her claims are still fatally
infirm,” Magistrate Judge Rutherford found that granting leave to amend would be futile and cause
unnecessary delay in resolving this action. Id. at 4. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Rutherford
recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and request to amend her Complaint were filed
after the Report. In Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, she does not assert that Defendant’s
liability has been finally determined by agreement or judgment, but she does list her claims are
under Texas Insurance Code § 541.001 and Texas common law; however, as Magistrate Judge
Rutherford had noted “A third-party tort claimant in Texas also has no direct cause of action for
extra-contractual liability against a liability insurer (i) at common law, (ii) under the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act, or (iii) under the Texas Insurance Code.” Id.
Case 3:24-cv-02886-L-BT Document 34 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 3
at 3 (citing Jones v. CGU Ins. Co., 78 S.W.3d 626, 629 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (citing
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 876 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tex. 1994))). Accordingly, the court finds that
granting leave to amend would be futile and cause needless delay.
After considering the pleadings, file, record, Report, and applicable law, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants Defendant’s Motion, dismisses without
prejudice Plaintiff’s claims, and grants Plaintiff’s Request to amend her complaint. The court
directs the clerk of court to file Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.
It is so ordered this 31st day of March, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02886-L-BT Document 34 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>