The insurer’s motion to dismiss was more appropriate for an eventual summary judgment motion and was consequently denied. Sivan Lam v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81262 (M.D. Fla. April 12, 2024).
Lam suffered a loss to her home due to Hurricane Ian. When only a portion of the claim was paid, Lam sued his insurer, Scottsdale, for breach of contract (Count I) and declaratory relief (Count II).
Scottsdale argued that Lam’s request for declaratory relief was redundant of her breach of contract claim. The court noted that Rule 12 (b)(6), Fed. R. Civil P., was a vehicle to challenge a claim’s sufficiency. Redundancy was not insufficiency, and it was not a ground for dismissal under Rule 12 (b)(6).
Scottsdale also argued that the complaint alleged nothing needing a declaration. But the complaint sought a declaration of rights, sought a determination of full coverage, and identified several exclusion provisions in need of a decision. Because there was a fight over whether Scottsdale had to provide coverage for the property damage, the complaint alleged an actual controversy to survive dismissal at this stage. It was possible that Lam could secure full relief through the breach of contract claim, but this question was best resolved at the summary judgment stage after discovery was completed.
The motion to dismiss was denied.