SCHMIDT

v.

FEDNAT INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2020-12-09

No. 2:19-CV-679

District Court, M.D. Florida (2020)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss extra-contractual claims for attorney fees and costs, and deemed the claim for interest withdrawn.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued for breach of an insurance contract. Defendant moved to dismiss extra-contractual claims for interest and attorney fees under Rule 12(…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Judgment On The Pleadings (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(C)) National Flood Insurance Program Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 12(F) (Motion To Strike) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judgment On The Pleadings (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(C)) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Dispositive Motion to Dismiss Extra-Contractual Claims Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) (Doc. #35) filed on November 13, 2020. Plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. #40) on December 7, 2020. In the one-count First Amended Complaint (Doc. #14), plaintiffs seek monetary damages, interest, costs, and other relief for a breach of an insurance contract issued by a Write- Your-Own Program carrier participating in the National Flood Insurance Program and sued as the fiscal agent of the United States. Defendant filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 17) on April 18, 2019. The deadline to amend the pleadings expired on July 17, 2019, and was not extended by the Amended or Second Amended Case Management and Scheduling Orders. (Docs. #22, 28, 31.) The pleadings are closed. Pursuant to Rule 12(c), defendant seeks to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ extra-contractual claims for attorney fees and interest as barred and/or pre-empted by federal law. A party may move for a judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when no issues of material fact exist, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Interline Brands, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 749 F. 3d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted).¹ In response, plaintiffs withdraw the request for an award of interest based “upon review of the authorities in Defendant’s Motion”. (Doc. #40, ¶ 5.) As the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that the “no-interest rule prohibits awards of prejudgment interest against Write-Your-Own companies administering the

National Flood Insurance Program”, Newton v. Capital Assur. Co., 245 F. 3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001), the Court will deem the request for interest withdrawn and deny the motion as moot.

— VHA) Z~ DH

JOHN E. STEELE

SHMIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Counsel of Record

Footnotes

1 The Court notes, without further discussion, that “the requested relief is more akin to a motion to strike the request for attorney's fees and costs under Federal Rule 12(f).” Arevalo, at *3. As such, the motion must have been filed within 21 days after being served with the pleading at issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2). In this case, the motion was filed more than a year and a half later. As to fees and costs, defendant relies on cases that pre-date Newton, and decisions in other circuits, primarily the Fifth Circuit. Plaintiffs argue in response that courts have recently found that claims for fees and costs are plausible under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Co., No. 2:19-CV-679-FTM-38MRM, 2020 WL 224538, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2020). The undersigned has also previously determined that if certain assumptions are made, where defendant seeks reimbursement for defense costs from FEMA and an arrangement exists entitling defendant to reimbursement, that “it is at least plausible at this point in the litigation that attorney's fees may be paid from federal funds by FEMA.” Arevalo v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., No. 2:19-CV-159-FTM-99UAM, 2019 WL 2476644, at *4 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2019). See also Morrissey v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Co., No. 5:19-CV-183-RH-MJF, 2019 WL 8063348, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2019) (citing Arevalo); Julian v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., No. 5:19-CV-450-RH-MJF, 2020 WL 6115151, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2020) (same). For this reason, the motion will be denied. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Defendant's Dispositive Motion to Dismiss Extra-Contractual Claims Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) (Doc. #35) is DENIED as moot as to the claim for interest, which is deemed withdrawn, and DENIED as to the claim of attorney’s fees and costs in the First Amended Complaint. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 9th day of December, 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Newton v. Cap. Assurance Co., Inc., 245 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2001)
Interline Brands, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 749 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2014)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw