SAI HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

v.

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this Hurricane Irma amount-of-loss dispute, Defendant Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill”) moves to: (1) dismiss Count II of Plaintiff SAI Hospitality Management Company, LLC’s (“SAI”) Amended Complaint with prejudice; and (2) strike SAI’s allegations regarding consequential damages and attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 17); Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(f)(2). SAI does not oppose Count II’s dismissal but argues that it should be dismissed without prejudice. While Rockhill’s motion was pending, the Supreme Court of Florida decided Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Manor House, LLC, No. SC19-1394, 2021 WL 208455 (Fla. Jan. 21, 2021), and the Court directed supplemental briefing on whether Manor House impacts any award of consequential damages in this case. Based on the parties’ supplemental briefing, it appears that SAI no longer opposes striking its claims for consequential damages. Thus, the only contested issue remaining is whether the Court should strike SAI’s allegations regarding attorneys’ fees in this case. After careful review, the Court holds that there is no basis to strike SAI’s requests for attorneys’ fees from its Amended Complaint. In sum, Rockhill’s motion to dismiss Count II is GRANTED IN PART without prejudice;

its motion to strike is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

LEGAL STANDARD

“At the motion to dismiss stage, all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F. 3d 1271, 1274 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F. 3d 1367, 1370 (11th

Cir.1998)). A complaint must provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under this standard, the complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A motion to strike “is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice” and “should be granted only when the pleading to be stricken has no possible relation to the controversy.” Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 306 F. 2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F. 2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953)). “[W]hen there is no showing of prejudicial harm to the moving party, the courts generally are not willing to determine disputed and substantial questions of law upon a motion to strike.” Id. “Under such circumstances, the court may properly . . . defer action on the motion and leave the sufficiency of the allegations for determination on the merits.” Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Count II is dismissed without prejudice.

Rockhill argues, in relevant part, that the Court should dismiss with prejudice Count II for breach of fiduciary duty because there is typically no fiduciary relationship between insurers and insureds, and SAI has failed to plead facts that would establish such a relationship. (Doc. 17 at 9–14); Asokan v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 302 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (quoting Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370, 374 (Fla. 2002)). SAI generally agrees but would like an opportunity to set forth facts establishing a special relationship between itself and Rockhill.¹ (Doc. 22 at 3.) Accordingly, the Court grants Rockhill’s motion to dismiss Count II without prejudice to SAI to amend. II. The Court holds, and the parties agree, that SAI’s request for consequential damages should be stricken according to the Supreme Court of Florida’s recent decision in Manor House. In Manor House, the Supreme Court of Florida held that extra-contractual, consequential damages are not permitted in first-party insurance-actions that do not involve bad faith. 2021 WL 208455 at *4. SAI’s Amended Complaint contains

PREJUDICE.

2. Rockhill’s motion to strike (Doc. 17) is GRANTED IN PART. SAI’s requests for consequential damages are stricken without prejudice to assert a claim for consequential damages in any future bad faith action. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED 3. No later than February 23, 2021, Rockhill shall answer the remaining count in the Amended Complaint ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on February 9, 2021. Are lA A hen

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE