SFR SERVICES LLC

v.

INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant. /

ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). Plaintiff SFR Services L.L.C. (a/a/o Vista Del Sol at Las Brisas Condominium Association, Inc.) responded in opposition (Doc. 16). And the parties filed supplemental briefs (Docs. 23; 24). This is a Hurricane Irma insurance case. The storm damaged Vista’s property, which Indian insured under a policy (the “Policy”). While they disputed coverage, Vista assigned its rights under the Policy to SFR (the “Assignment”). SFR sued for breach of contract. Now, Indian seeks dismissal.

must specify the need for, and the length of, the proposed reply.”). So Indian’s perfunctory request for a reply is denied. The Court finds Judge Badalamenti’s well-reasoned Fairway decision convincing. And where relevant, it comes to the same conclusion.

A complaint must recite “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 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)). Courts must accept all well-pled allegations as true and view them most favorably to plaintiff. Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc., 851 F. 3d 1060, 1066 (11th Cir. 2017).

The Court first tackles a threshold jurisdictional issue: standing. Gardner v. Mutz, 962 F. 3d 1329, 1338-40 (11th Cir. 2020). Because of defects in the Assignment, says Indian, SFR lacks standing. The Court disagrees.² Almost invariably, a party to a contract has standing to sue for breach.

Interface Kanner, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 704 F. 3d 927, 932 (11th Cir. 2013). An assignment is just a contract. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. QBE Holdings, Inc., 965 F. 3d 1210, 1218 (11th Cir. 2020). And Florida insureds can freely assign their post-loss insurance claims. Bruno v. Hartford

Ins. Co. of the Midwest, No. 2:20-cv-910-FtM-38NPM, 2021 WL 229402, at *2

Article III and contractual standpoint. See Fairway, 2021 WL 1165185, at *5- 6, 11-12; SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC, 963 F. 3d 206, 212 (2d Cir. 2020). What the parties’ dispute really boils down to is whether the Assignment is void or voidable. Fairway analyzed that issue at length. As there, Indian provides no argument on why the Assignment’s defect would render it void, instead of merely voidable. Importantly, an issue with contract formation does not automatically render the agreement void. E.g., Griffin v. ARX Holding Corp., 208 So. 3d 164, 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). Nor has Indian shown the need to break from a century-long precent holding nonparties to assignments cannot challenge voidable defects. Fairway, 2021 WL 1165185, at *6-9 (collecting cases); see also OMS Collections v. Tien, 634 F. App’x 750, 757 (11th Cir. 2015). So the Motion is denied. Indian can raise the issue again at summary judgment, provided it can do so in good faith and provide proper support. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 7, 2021.

, Lh platrathe 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record