For Plaintiff: Nicholas R. De Biase, pro se1, Fire Island Pines, New York. For Defendants: Cynthia Louise Bernstiel, Esq., pro hac vice Rebar Bernstiel, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. Frank V. Kelly, Esq., Rebar Bernstiel, New York, New York. MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Nicholas R. De Biase (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against defendants Evanston Insurance Company (“Evanston”) and Markel Service Incorporated2 (“Markel” and with Evanston, “Defendants”) asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of Defendants’ alleged failure to timely issue an insurance coverage opinion. (See generally Am. Compl.) Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim (the “Motion”). (Mot., D.E. 22; see generally Def. Br., D.E. 22-1; Pl. Opp., D.E. 23; Def. Reply, D.E. 24; Pl. Sur-Reply, D.E. 25.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND3 Plaintiff is the owner of the property located at 247 Bay Walk, Fire Island Pines, New York (the “Property”). (Am. Compl. 1.) Evanston initially insured the Property on a yearly basis from January 29, 2014 through January 29, 2016 under policy number RUA12816.4 (Am. Compl. 9.) Thereafter, Plaintiff renewed the Evanston insurance on a yearly basis from January 29, 2016 through January 28, 2019 under policy number RUA20516 (the “Policy”). (Am. Compl. 12.) As pertinent here, the Policy provides that “[n]o action can be brought against [Defendants] unless there has been full compliance with all of the terms under Section I of this policy and the action is started within two years after the date of loss.” (Policy, D.E. 1-1, H at ECF p. 22.) Under “Section I – Conditions,” subsection C, “Duties After Loss,” Defendants “have no duty to provide coverage under this policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us.” (Policy at ECF p. 20.) The “Duties After Loss” provides, among other things, that an insured must (1) “cooperate with [Defendants] in the investigation of a claim” and (2) “as often as [Defendants] reasonably require…[p]rovide [Defendants] with records and documents [Defendants] request” and “[s]ubmit to [an] examination under oath.” (Policy at ECF p. 20, Sections (I)(C)(5) and (7)(b)- (c).) Around late February or early March 2018, three nor’easter storms damaged the Property. (Am. Compl. 14.) Plaintiff submitted a claim under the Policy to recover the costs of the damage. (Am. Compl. 15.) On March 24, 2018, Defendants’ inspector, Robert Patton (“Patton”), inspected the Property. (Am. Compl.
16-17.) According to Plaintiff, Patton confirmed via phone calls, text messages, and emails that the Property needed a “complete replacement of the upper roof” and requested that Plaintiff provide him with estimates of costs for other damage to the Property. (Am. Compl. 18.) Plaintiff complied with that request and Patton submitted a storm and wind damage estimate to Defendants but not to Plaintiff. (Am. Compl.
