Attorneys for a local police department and an insurance company are asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Buffalo Township couple, after the couple alleges that police acted on a false tip from an insurance adjuster that they were growing marijuana — which turned out to be hibiscus.

The lawsuit, filed by Edward and Audrey Cramer, ages 69 and 66, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Two filings, on Jan. 8 and 11, are attempting to have the lawsuit dismissed on legal grounds.

Attorneys representing Buffalo Township police officers denied many of the allegations.

Officers’ “actions (were) lawful, justified and/or privileged,” “reasonable and warranted under the circumstances,” “conducted in accordance with and pursuant to a lawful search warrant” and “without the intent to violate plaintiffs civil rights” according to the department’s legal response to the Cramer’s claims.

According to the original lawsuit, township police obtained a search warrant based on photographs taken by insurance agent Jonathan Yeamans. After arriving at the home on Oct. 7, they roughly handcuffed Audrey Cramer and led her outside in her underwear and bare feet, although she asked if she could put on a nearby pair of jeans and sandals in the house.

The lawsuit claims Audrey Cramer was then held in the back of a hot police car for 4½ hours with her hands tightly cuffed behind her back. When her husband arrived 30 minutes after police, he had guns pointed at him and was also cuffed and placed into the back of another cruiser, the lawsuit claims.

The department’s response denies officers ever treated the Cramers in a forceful manner, and denies that either were arrested, although they were held in custody and handcuffed.

“At the time of the search pursuant to a lawful search warrant, the officers had insufficient knowledge to determine whether there was an immediate threat to their safety posed by the plaintiffs,” the response states.

It also denies that the Cramers were held in the back of a hot police car for several hours, saying that they were detained for under an hour in the vehicle and later allowed back inside the home while police conducted the search.

The lawsuit claims Audrey Cramer explained to police that the plants they were seeking were flowering hibiscus, which vaguely resemble marijuana, but was told by police that her husband had lied to her about raising hibiscus and was actually raising marijuana.

Buffalo police officers then ransacked the house looking for marijuana, causing various damage to the home’s interior and causing emotional stress to the Cramers, the lawsuit says.

That allegation was also denied in the response, which states that no damage was done by the officers.

The lawsuit also alleges two of the officers claimed at the scene to be experts in marijuana identification, but the response denies “that Sgt. Hess ever proclaimed himself to be a marijuana expert.”

The police eventually figured out the plants at the home were not marijuana and released the Cramers.

“It is admitted that the plants at issue, which resembled marijuana plants, were ultimately found to be hibiscus plants,” the response states.

However, despite the Cramers’ claims, the response states that “it is denied that the officers ever saw any hibiscus plants at plaintiffs’ home that were flowering.”

“It is admitted that if the plants viewed by the police had been flowering that they would have known they were not marijuana plants,” it states.

In Nationwide’s motion to dismiss filing, the company argues that the bad faith claim should be dismissed because the alleged conduct does not involve an action arising under an insurance policy, as “Mr. Yeamans’/Nationwide’s actions did not ‘injure’ (their) right to receive the benefit of the contract.”

“Mr. Yeamans’ report of suspected marijuana to the police could not — and was not — done to avoid paying the claim, and plaintiffs have not pleaded any facts to establish Nationwide did not pay their property damage claim in its entirety,” the response states.

The lawsuit also claims the Cramers received notification later in October from Nationwide Insurance saying that marijuana was found on the property, “and if they failed to remove the nonexistent marijuana plants, Nationwide would cancel their insurance policy.”

The response states that “an allegation that Nationwide sent plaintiffs a cancellation notice — or even an allegation that Nationwide improperly canceled their policy — is insufficient to state a claim for bad faith under Pennsylvania law.”

It also claims the defamation charge should be dismissed because Yeamans’ reporting of suspected criminal activity — “even if the report is incorrect” — cannot support a claim for defamation because such communications are “absolutely privileged.”

“Even if the report was false or maliciously motivated, the privilege to report suspected criminal activity to the police is absolute and he and Nationwide cannot be liable for defamation,” the response states.

The claim for invasion of privacy should also be dismissed, the response states, because Yeamans was allowed on the property to do the insurance investigation.

However, the lawsuit claims Yeamans was in a vehicle in the driveway finishing paperwork, when after Edward Cramer left to run errands, Yeamans “re-entered the property and took photographs of the flowering hibiscus plants in the Cramers’ back yard.”

For the emotional distress claims, the response states these are “not the type of conduct that Pennsylvania courts have found to be actionable.”

“Several courts have held that being accused of crime — even if the accusations are false — does not support a claim for IIED (intentionally influenced emotional distress),” the response states.

A court ruling on the motion and response has yet to be made.

In the original lawsuit, the Cramers claim insurance bad faith, defamation, invasion of privacy, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Nationwide Insurance and insurance agent Yeamans; invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest and excessive force against Buffalo Township Police Sgt. Scott Hess; and civil rights violations by the police department, specifically officer Jeffrey Sneddon and Lt. Timothy Derringer.

The lawsuit states that Buffalo Township Police violated the civil rights of the couple, while Nationwide Insurance violated privacy acts in reporting the suspected plants while Yeamans was investigating a claim Oct. 5 made by the couple that a large tree fell and damaged part of their home Sept. 20.