DECISION & ORDER On September 16, 2022, the plaintiffs, James and Judy Lalime, commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County. Docket Item 1-2. They assert claims for breach of contract related to an insurance policy issued by the defendant, TravCo Insurance Company (“Travelers”). Docket Items 10 and 12. Travelers was served in January 2023, and it timely removed the case to this Court based on diversity of citizenship. Docket Item 1. After Travelers moved to dismiss the complaint in part, Docket Item 11, the Lalimes amended the complaint, Docket Item 12. Travelers then moved to dismiss the amended complaint in part, Docket Item 15, and the Lalimes responded to the second motion to dismiss and moved to amend the complaint a second time, Docket Item 16; Docket Item 16-4; see Docket Item 16-3 (redlined copy of proposed second amended complaint). On May 30, 2023, Travelers replied in support of its second motion to dismiss and responded to the motion to amend, Docket Item 17. The Lalimes did not reply in support of their motion to amend, and the time to do so has now expired. See Loc. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(2). For the reasons that follow, Travelers’ second motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and the Lalimes’ motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part. Travelers’ first motion to dismiss is denied as moot. BACKGROUND1 The Lalimes own a home in East Amherst, New York, Docket Item 12 at 4, that was insured under a homeowners policy issued by Travelers, id. at 12; see Docket Item 15-4. The policy covered the period from May 19, 2020, to May 19, 2021, Docket Item 12 at 14; Docket Item 15-4 at 2, and provided insurance coverage of up to $588,000 for damage to the “dwelling,” up to $411,600 for damage to “personal property,” and up to $176,440 for “loss of use,” Docket Item 15-4 at 2 (capitalization omitted); see Docket Item 12 at
26, 46, 65. On or about September 18, 2020, the Lalimes’ property was damaged by a “collapse.” Docket Item 12 at 17. The damage to the dwelling and the Lalimes’ personal property exceeded the policy limits, as did the loss of use damages the Lalimes suffered as a result of the collapse. Id. at
