FONSECA

v.

AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY

a/k/a Gladis Fonseca,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:21-cv-521-MMH-PDB

AMERICAN RELIABLE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 12; Motion) filed on June 22, 2021. In the Motion, Defendant moves for dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), for failure to state a claim. See Motion at 1. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion on August 10, 2021. See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 21; Response). Upon review, the Court finds that the Motion is due to be denied.

I. Standard of Review

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002); see also Lotierzo v. Woman’s World Med. Ctr., Inc., 278 F. 3d 1180, 1182 (11th Cir. 2002). In addition, all reasonable inferences should be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Randall v. Scott, 610 F. 3d 701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, the plaintiff must still meet some minimal pleading requirements. Jackson v. Bellsouth Telecomm., 372 F. 3d 1250, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Indeed, while “[s]pecific facts are not necessary[,]” the complaint should “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

Further, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted);

see also Jackson, 372 F. 3d at 1262 (explaining that “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Indeed, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions[,]” which simply “are not entitled to [an] assumption of truth.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 680. Thus, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[.]’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

II. Discussion

In the Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract arising out of Defendant’s refusal to pay her claim under a homeowner’s insurance policy. According to Plaintiff, on June 22, 2020, she sustained a covered loss to her property as a result of wind damage. See Amended Complaint ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the loss she had paid the premium and the policy was in full force and effect. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has refused to issue payment and as a result, she has sustained damages. Id. ¶¶ 10, 12. In support, Plaintiff also identifies the policy number, claim number, and address of the damaged property. Id. ¶¶ 6- 7, 9. Under Florida law, to plead a claim for breach of contract, “a plaintiff must assert the existence of a contract, a breach of such contract, and damages resulting from such breach.” See Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1365 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2007) (citing Knowles v. C.I.T. Corp., 346 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. App. 1977)). Here, Plaintiff has alleged the existence of a contract and specifically identified it by policy number. See Amended Complaint ¶ 6. In addition, Plaintiff has alleged a breach of that contract—Defendant’s refusal to pay Plaintiff’s claim, identified by claim number, for allegedly covered losses to a specifically identified property stemming from wind damage on June 22, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 7-11.1 In addition,

Plaintiff alleges that she has sustained damages as a result of this breach. Id. ¶ 12. While perhaps not a model of clarity, drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to provide Defendant with notice of what Plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds on which it rests. Defendant asserts that dismissal is warranted because the Amended Complaint does not contain allegations describing the specific property damage involved, Plaintiff does not attach the insurance policy to the Amended

Complaint, and Plaintiff does not identify the specific provisions of the Policy

WL 6181348, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2018); Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC, 527 F. Supp. 2d at 1365.3 To the extent Defendant cites non-binding authority to

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge

lc11

Copies to:

Counsel of Record