Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC et al, No. 2:2018cv00021 - Document 106 (M.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 99 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Specified Affirmative Defenses. The Motion is denied as to the Second Affirmative Defense and granted as to the Fourth Affirmative Defense without prejudice to filing an amended affirmative defense within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 12/9/2019. (BLW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Southern-Owners Insurance Company v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC et al Doc. 106 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SOUTHERN-OWNERS COMPANY, INSURANCE Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:18-cv-21-FtM-99MRM MAC CONTRACTORS OF FLORIDA, LLC, PAUL S. DOPPELT, Trustee of Paul S. Doppelt Revocable Trust dated 12/08/90, and DEBORAH A. DOPPELT, Trustee of Deborah A. Doppelt Revocable Trust dated 12/08/90, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Specified Affirmative Defenses (Doc. #99) filed on October 31, 2019. Florida, Defenses. Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant MAC Contractors of LLC’s (MAC) First, Second, and Fourth Affirmative MAC has withdrawn its First Affirmative Defense (Doc. #101); therefore, only the Second and Fourth Affirmative Defenses are at issue here. MAC filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #102) on November 14, 2019. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Dockets.Justia.com I. In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff-insurer Southern-Owners Insurance Company (Southern-Owners) is currently proceeding on a Second Amended Complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendantinsured MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC (d/b/a KJIMS Construction) for claims asserted in a state-court lawsuit brought by Paul and Deborah Doppelt, styled Doppelt et al. v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC d/b/a KJIMS Construction, No. 2016-CA-1530. #84.) (Doc. MAC (d/b/a KJIMS Construction) filed an Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim seeking a declaration that Southern-Owners was obligated to defend and indemnify MAC. #97.) (Doc. Plaintiff moves to strike the Second and Fourth Affirmative Defenses. (Doc. #99.) II. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a defendant to “affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense.” R. Civ. P. 8(c). Fed. “An affirmative defense is generally a defense that, if established, requires judgment for the defendant even if the plaintiff evidence.” Cir. can prove his case by a preponderance of the Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F.3d 1287, 1303 (11th 1999). “insufficient Pursuant defense[s]” requesting, or sua sponte. to Rule from a 12(f), courts pleading upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). - 2 - may a strike motion so As this Court has recently discussed on several occasions, compliance with Rule 8(c) requires a defendant to set forth “some facts establishing a nexus between the elements of an affirmative defense and the allegations in the complaint,” so as to provide the plaintiff fair notice of the grounds upon which the defense rests. PK Studios, Inc. v. R.L.R. Invs., LLC, No. 2:15-cv-389- FTM-99CM, 2016 WL 4529323, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2016) (quoting Daley v. Scott, No: 2:15-cv-269-FtM-29DNF, 2016 WL 3517697, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2016)). Boilerplate pleading – that is, merely listing the name of the affirmative defense without providing any supporting facts – is insufficient to satisfy Rule 8(c), because it does not provide a plaintiff adequate grounds to rebut or properly litigate the defense. Grant v. Preferred Research, Inc., 885 F.2d 795, 797 (11th Cir. 1989); Hassan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 842 F.2d 260, 263 (11th Cir. 1988)). III. Plaintiff Defenses only argues that the Second offer bare bones and Fourth conclusory allegations, patently frivolous, and invalid as a matter of law. that the affirmative defenses have provided Affirmative are MAC responds fair notice to Southern-Owners of its intent to rely upon ambiguity and waiver. The Second Affirmative Defense states: As for its Second Affirmative Defense, SOUTHERN-OWNERS is barred from the relief sought by certain ambiguities in the policy drafted by SOUTHERN-OWNERS. Such - 3 - ambiguities must be interpreted under governing law in favor of coverage. (Doc. #97, p. 4.) As an affirmative defense, the Second Affirmative Defense is deficient for failing to allege anything beyond a vague reference to “certain ambiguities.” But whether the insurance policy is ambiguous is an issue of contract interpretation. This defense is, in effect, a denial because it alleges defects in plaintiff’s prima facie case. See In re Rawson Food Serv., Inc., 846 F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 1988) (“A defense which points out a defect in the plaintiff's defense.”). prima facie case is not an affirmative However, when a party incorrectly labels a “negative averment as an affirmative defense rather than as a specific denial[,] ... the proper remedy is not [to] strike the claim, but rather to treat [it] as a specific denial.” Gonzalez v. Spears Holdings, Inc., 2009 WL 2391233 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2009) (citing Home Mgmt. Solutions, 2007 WL 2412834 at *3)). Therefore, the Court will treat defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense as a denial and will not strike it. The Fourth Affirmative Defense states: As for its Fourth Affirmative Defense, KJIMS states that SOUTHERN-OWNERS has, by its actions and/or omissions, waived any right to contest coverage. (Doc. #97, p. 5.) Plaintiff asserts that waiver is not a recognized legal basis for creating coverage which would not - 4 - otherwise exist. However, in Florida, “[a]s a matter of law, waiver and estoppel are affirmative defenses that must be pleaded.” Louie’s Oyster, Inc. v. Villaggio Di Las Olas, Inc., 915 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). sufficient factual basis However, MAC has not adequately pled a to establish a plausible defense. Therefore, the motion to strike will be granted without prejudice to filing an amended affirmative defense. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Specified Affirmative Defenses (Doc. #99) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is denied as to the Second Affirmative Defense and granted as to the Fourth Affirmative Defense without prejudice to filing an amended affirmative defense within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __9th__ day of December, 2019. Copies: Counsel of Record - 5 -
]]>
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.
