BAUMGARDNER
v.
AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
The court held that paragraphs alleging bad faith practices are not grounds for a motion to strike in a breach of contract claim, as they provide relevant background information.
Plaintiff sued for breach of contract after Defendant allegedly failed to pay the full insurance proceeds owed for damage from Hurricane Ian. Defendan…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
individually and as Trustee of The Aileen J. Baumgardner Living Trust dated February 15, 2012,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:23-cv-298-JLB-KCD
AMERICAN MODERN
PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant. /
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant American Modern Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s Renewed Motion to Strike. (Doc. 22.)1 Plaintiffs have not responded and the time to do so expired. Thus, the Court treats this matter as unopposed. For the reasons below, Defendant’s motion is denied.
I. Background
This is an insurance dispute. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant will not “pay the full amount of insurance proceeds owed” for damage following
Besides the allegations about breach, the complaint discusses Defendant’s claims-handling practices during its adjustment of Plaintiff’s claim. (Doc. 3 ¶¶ 18-21, 23.) Defendant now moves to strike those paragraphs, arguing they “accuse [it] of bad faith” and “are impertinent, immaterial,
scandalous, prejudicial and/or fail to support a claim for breach of contract.” (Doc. 22 at 3.)2
II. Discussion
Motions to strike “are generally disfavored . . . [and] often considered time wasters.” Arthurs v. Glob. TPA LLC, No. 6:14-CV-1209-ORL-40-TBS, 2015 WL 13652716, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2015). Consistent with that treatment, “[a] court will not . . . strike a pleading unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Ware v. Knights Enter., No. 8:12-CV- 1981-T-30MAP, 2012 WL 6213129, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2012). Here, the paragraphs challenged do not unreasonably confuse the issues or meaningfully prejudice Defendant. They provide relevant background
This is not to say Plaintiff can argue bad faith to the jury or publish allegations suggesting as much. Allowing reference to bad faith conduct during litigation involving a coverage dispute can prejudice the insurer and distort the jury’s view of the issues. But the appropriate mechanism to avoid that prejudice is a motion in limine before of trial, not a motion to strike. See, e.g., Wilshire Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., No. 10-23806-CIV, 2013 WL 12092532, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2013). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Defendant American Modern Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s Renewed Motion to Strike (Doc. 22) is DENIED. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 24, 2023.
Lhe L wih Kile C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record