Motion,Ex Parte: ZIEGLER, RICHARD vs. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Filing # 157591724 E-Filed 09/16/2022 03:05:55 PM



                         IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
                                IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA
                                            CIVIL DIVISION

        RICHARD ZIEGLER and
        SONJA ANDERSON,

                Plaintiffs,

        Vv.                                                                     Case No.: 2022 CA 000869
                                                                                Division: F
        HOMEOWNERS CHOICE
        PROPERTY & CASUALTY
        INSURANCE COMPANY,

                Defendant.
                                                                      /

                         ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
                           PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,
               OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

                THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the

        First Amended         Complaint, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement, and

        the Court having considered Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion, heard argument

        of counsel on September 15, 2022, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises

        finds as follows:

                Defendant's Motion to Dismiss argues the First Amended                         Complaint is legally

        insufficient   under     Florida   Rule    of Civil     Procedure       1.110(b)   for two    reasons.   First,

        Defendant claims that Sonja Anderson does not have standing to maintain the action

        because    she    is not a named          insured     and   there are    no allegations      in the operative

        complaint sufficient to place them on notice as to her interest in the controversy. Plaintiffs

        conceded this point prior to the hearing and requested leave to amend the complaint to
allege that Sonja Anderson is the named insured’s lawful spouse and was resident of the

household.

          Second, Defendant argued the First Amended Complaint is legally insufficient and

subject to dismissal because it did not specifically and exactly identify what provision, or

provisions,    of the      insurance     policy the     Defendant     allegedly    breached.       Alternatively,

Defendant moves for a more definite statement requiring Plaintiffs to identify the specific

provisions of the policy that were allegedly breached.                   Plaintiffs contend that the four-

corners of the operative complaint sufficiently plead the elements of a breach of contract

action.

          The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs and finds that the First Amended Complaint is

legally sufficient under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b). The facts alleged in the

operative     complaint,     taken     as true and     evaluated      in the   light most favorable to the

Plaintiffs, constitutes a sufficient factual basis establishing the existence of each of the

elements of a breach of contract action and are sufficient to put Defendant on notice of

the nature of the action and allow the Defendant to file a responsive pleading.

WHEREFORE             it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED

    1.    Defendant's Motion is Denied in Part as to the Defendant's contention that the

          Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 1.110(b), Fla. R. Civ. P.

          The Defendant’s Motion           is Granted       in Part as to the Defendant's contention

          conceming      Plaintiffs’    failure   to   sufficiently   plead    Plaintiff   Sonja    Anderson’s

          standing to bring this action, however, Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the

          operative    complaint to allege the factual            basis establishing       Sonja    Anderson’s

          standing to maintain the action is Granted.
a.   Plaintiffs shall have 10 days from the date of this order to file their Second

               Amended Complaint.

          b.   Defendant shall have 20 days,     from the date Plaintiffs file their Second

               Amended Complaint, to file a responsive pleading or motion.

DONE AND ORDERED          in Chambers, Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida,


                                                           (
                                                eSigned by CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE AMY P, BRODERSEN
                                                ‘on 09/16/2022 13:44:16 +PCWXwWVE
                                           Amy P. Brodersen
                                           Circuit Court Judge



Copies furnished to:

Brian D. Hancock
bhancock@twwlawfirm.com

Curt Allen
callen@bushross.com

Nicholas Pazos
 jpazos@bushross.com