DEL PRADO MALL PROFESSIONAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
VOYAGER INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2021-04-22
No. 2:19-cv-81
320 F. Supp. 3d 1283 District Court, M.D. Florida (2021) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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 granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the count for declaratory relief, finding it duplicative of the breach of contract claim and that an adequate remedy at law existed.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff condominium association sued its insurer for breach of contract and declaratory relief after the insurer denied or underpaid property damage…

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.

Topics
Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 57 Duplicative Claims Discretionary Relief Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 8(A)(2) (Pleading Standard)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 57 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This is an insurance dispute between Plaintiff Del Prado Mall Professional Condominium Association, Inc. (“Del Prado”) and its insurer, Defendant Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company (“Voyager”). Del Prado alleges that its property suffered covered damages under the Policy, but Voyager either denied or underpaid the coverage. (Doc. 14 ¶¶ 9, 14, 18.) As a result, Del Prado brings claims for breach of contract (Count I) and “declaratory relief/judgment” (Count II). (Id. at 4, 5.) Voyager moves to dismiss Count II, arguing that it does not state a claim and is otherwise duplicative of Count I. (Doc. 15); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Del Prado responds that an actual controversy exists between the parties, and that Voyager’s redundancy argument is inappropriate for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. (Doc. 19 at 3–4.) The Court agrees with Voyager.1

Under this standard, the complaint “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it Declaratory relief may be improper when there is an adequate remedy at law. Sibley v. Lando, 437 F. 3d 1067, 1073–74 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Bolin v. Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1242–43 (11th Cir. 2000)); see also Cady & Cady Studios, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1284 (N.D. Fla. 2018).

Such relief is ultimately discretionary because even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 “specifically provides that the existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief . . . a court in the exercise of [its] discretion . . . may properly refuse declaratory relief if the alternative remedy is better or more effective.” Angora Enters., Inc. v. Condo. Ass’n of Lakeside Vill., 796

F. 2d 384, 387–88 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam, quotation and citation omitted). Here, Count II of the Amended Complaint directly incorporates Del Prado’s breach-of-contract allegations. (Doc. 14 ¶ 26 (incorporating ¶¶ 9, 18).) Moreover, Del Prado states that it “has a justiciable question as to the existence of the fact that it suffered damage on December 18, 2018.” (Doc. 19 at 3.) But Count II does not raise any ambiguity or issue that Count I cannot address. Waterford Condo. Ass’n of Collier Cnty. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., No. 2:19-cv-81-FtM-38UAM, 2019

WL 5084138, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2019). In fact, Count II seeks declaratory relief “in such a manner as to require Defendant to pay the claims made by Plaintiff”—the same exact relief Count I seeks. (Doc. 14 ¶ 28.) Lastly, Del Prado’s argument that the Court should not dismiss an otherwise valid declaratory

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-meaccusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). judgment claim in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, for redundancy, is unpersuasive. See generally Brown v. Vivint Solar, Inc., No. 8:18-cev-2838-T-24 JSS, 2020 WL 1332010, at *7—-8 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2020) (explaining that, in insurance cases, courts have discretion not to exercise jurisdiction over duplicative requests for declaratory relief that are not purely retrospective and therefore not “meaningful or necessary’). The power to render a declaratory judgment is discretionary and, for these reasons, the Court will not exercise that discretion here.

Accordingly, Voyager’s motion to dismiss (Doc. GRANTED. Del Prado must file an amended complaint omitting Count IJ on or before May 6, 2021. ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on April 22, 2021. i LF ) oe Ped Chabclheahr

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes
1 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).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Del Prado Mall Prof'l Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Voyager Indem. Ins. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2021)
    …may be improper when there is an adequate remedy at law. Sibley v. Lando, 437 F. 3d 1067, 1073–74 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Bolin v. Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1242–43 (11th Cir. 2000)); see also Cady & Cady Studios, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1284 (N.D. Fla. 2018). Such relief is ultimately discretionary because even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57 “specifically provides that the existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief . . .…
  • Guzman v. Penn-America Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …necessarily be resolved upon adjudication of the breach of contract count.” Old Dominion Ins. Co., 2020 WL 4756820, at *13 (quoting Tamiami Condo. Warehouse Plaza, 2019 WL 4863378, at *3); see Cady & Cady Studios, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1284 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (dismissing plaintiffs declaratory relief claim because “there is an adequate legal remedy—damages for breach of contract”); Ministerio Evangelistico Int'l v. United Specialty Ins. Co., No. 16-25313-CIV, 2017 WL 1363344, at *2…
  • Ollies Neighborhood Grill Inc v. Maxum Indem. Co. (N.D. Fla. 2022)
    …2753-CIV, 2021 WL 4502304, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2021) (dismissing where the declaratory judgment claim was “entirely duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim”). CASE NO. 3: 21cv3798-MCR-EMT Cady Studios, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1284 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (same). Conversely, this Court has allowed the two claims to go forward together where it is shown that a declaratory judgment could afford the plaintiff more relief than allowed by simply prevailing on the breach of contract…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw