Victoria Estates, LTD et al v. RSUI Indemnity Company, No. 2:2009cv00536 - Document 16 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for more definite statement. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/9/2010. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Victoria Estates, LTD et al v. RSUI Indemnity Company Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION VICTORIA ESTATES, LTD, BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., a New York Corporation now known as Benderson Properties, Inc., RONALD BENDERSON 1995 TRUST, BENDERSON 85-1 TRUST, BUFFALO G REENBRIAR ASSOCIATES, LLC, RB-3 ASSOCIATES, RANDALL BENDERSON 1193-1 TRUST, WR-I ASSOCIATES, LTD., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, Hampshire Stock Company, a 2:09-cv-536-FtM-29DNF New Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, For A More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. #11) filed on December 23, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. #13) on January 21, 2010. In a November 4, 2009 Opinion and Order (Doc. #8), the Court consolidated this action with 2:09-cv-88-FtM-29DNF, which was made the lead case. In RSUI s current motion to dismiss, it argues that plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted in the Complaint. RSUI argues that the insurance policy at issue is only issued to Benderson Development Company, Inc., n/k/a Benderson Properties, Inc. (Benderson) and its associated and affiliated companies, but does not specify which Dockets.Justia.com associated and affiliated companies have in interest in the policy. (Doc. #11, pp. 3-4.) to admit or deny RSUI asserts that it is impossible for [it] whether any of these parties other than [Benderson] have an interest since there are no allegations in the Complaint asserting any of their relationships to the Named Insured on the RSUI Policy and simply lumps all the Plaintiffs together as Insureds. (Id. at 4.) Thus, the other plaintiffs lack standing to enforce the terms and conditions of the underlying insurance policy. (Id. at 4-5.) RSUI s position that it cannot answer the Complaint is belied by the fact that it answered an identical Counterclaim filed in the other, now consolidated, case. (See Case no. 2:09-cv-88-ftm-29DNF, Doc. #13, p. 3.) Additionally, plaintiffs have alleged standing, specifically stating that the entities are insured under the RSUI policy. (Doc. #1, p. 1.) The Court finds that no more definite statement is required. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendant s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, For A More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. #11) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this August, 2010. -2- 9th day of Copies: Counsel of record -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
