ADVANCE MOLD SERVICES, INC., ETC.
v.
UNIVERSAL NORTH AMERICA 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.
A motion to dismiss cannot be used to resolve factual disputes about whether a fee constitutes an administrative fee prohibited by § 627.7152(2)(b), and the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice without determining the nature of the fee.
[1] A trial court cannot resolve factual disputes regarding whether a fee qualifies as an administrative fee prohibited by § 627.7152(2)(b) at the motion to dismiss stage; su…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A motion to dismiss is designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and not to determine any factual issues.”
Court's statement of the proper standard for motions to dismiss
Advance Mold Services entered into an assignment agreement with an insured homeowner and provided mold remediation services after Universal North Amer…
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 Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 20, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0240 Lower Tribunal No. 22-34088 CC
________________
Advance Mold Services, Inc., etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Universal North America Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge. Leader, Leader & Zucker, PLLC, and Michael D. Leader and Scott R. Zucker (Ft. Lauderdale); and Neil Rose (Hollywood), for appellant. Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, PLC, and David T. Burr (Tampa), for appellee. Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant Advance Mold Services, Inc. d/b/a Ocean Coast Restoration, as assignee of Glenn Franklyn, appeals from a final order dismissing its breach of contract action against Appellee Universal North America Insurance Company. The trial court dismissed pursuant to § 627.7152(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2023), which prohibits assignment agreements from containing certain fees, including an administrative fee. Advance Mold argues that dismissal with prejudice was improper because the trial court never determined the nature of the fee in question. We agree and therefore reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings. In April 2020, Advance Mold entered into an Assignment Agreement with Franklyn, who was insured by Universal. According to the allegations in the Complaint, Advance Mold provided mold remediation services, and Universal failed to pay. Advance Mold sued Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss arguing that Advance Mold’s Assignment Agreement was invalid pursuant to § 627.7152(2)(b), which provides that “[a]n assignment agreement may not contain . . . . [a]n administrative fee.” According to Universal, Advance Mold was in violation of the statute because its estimate of services contained the following line item: “Hazardous Waste/Mold Cleaning-Supervisory/Admin-per hour.”1 At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Advance Mold argued that the fee was for a supervisor at the jobsite and not a clerical fee associated with administering the Assignment Agreement. The trial judge asked counsel for Universal if she had to determine that the fee in question was in fact an administrative fee. Counsel for Universal answered that the fact that the line item in the estimate contained the word “admin” was enough on its face to dismiss with prejudice. The court ultimately entered an order dismissing Advance Mold’s action with prejudice.
On appeal, Advance Mold argues that the nature of the fee in question involves a factual dispute and therefore could not be resolved at the motion to dismiss phase. We agree. “A motion to dismiss is designed to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint and not to determine any factual issues.” Chodorow v. Porto Vita, Ltd., 954 So. 2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing The Fla. Bar v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195, 1199 (Fla. 2006)). We therefore reverse the dismissal and remand for the trial court to consider
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Greene, 926 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 2006)
- Chodorow v. Porto Vita, Ltd., 954 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)