ORDER

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on:

This case is a multi-count, multi-defendant case in which Plaintiffs are suing the primary and excess insurers of the real properties that Plaintiffs own, manage and develop. Plaintiffs have included claims for breach of contract, first party bad faith and unfair claims settlement practices.

I. Background

The Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 2) includes the claims Plaintiffs Oakland Management Corp. and Beztak Management Company assert as to Lexington Insurance Company, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Northfield Insurance Company, Essex Insurance Company, Westchester Surplus Lines insurance Company, and Royal Indemnity Company n/k/a Arrowood Indemnity Company, as follows:

Plaintiffs attached the following insurance policies to the Second Amended Complaint:

The above policies are portfolio policies, covering various apartments, shopping centers, office buildings and industrial buildings.

The above policies are portfolio policies, covering various apartments, shopping centers, office buildings and industrial buildings. In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Fireman's Fund policies are excess property casualty policies.

Exhibits L through P are excess policies. Exhibit L is excess to primary Lexington Policy No. 8799852 (Exhibit E). Exhibit M is excess to primary Lexington Policy No. 8524782 (Exhibit F). Exhibit N does not indicate a specific primary policy; based on the policy period the Court assumes Exhibit N is excess to primary Lexington Policy No. 8525768 (Exhibit G). Exhibit O is excess to primary Lexington Policy 8799852 (Exhibit E). Exhibit P is excess to primary Lexington Policy 8524782 (Exhibit F).

II. Discussion

A. Bad Faith and Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Counts 7-14

In Vest v. Travelers Insurance Company, 753 So.2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2000), the Florida Supreme Court clarified that the determination of the existence of liability and the extent of the insured's damages are elements of a cause of action for bad faith.

Plaintiffs concede that the bad faith claims and unfair claims settlement practices claims should not proceed. Plaintiffs argue that these claims should be abated rather than dismissed without prejudice.

Because Plaintiffs have not secured a final determination that Defendants have paid Plaintiffs less than what was due under the policies, Plaintiffs have not yet established that a bad faith or unfair claims settlement action lies against Defendants. The Court has the authority to abate the statutory claims or to dismiss them without prejudice. Vanguard Fire and Casualty Company v. Gilman, 955 So.2d 591, 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). After consideration, the Court finds that it will not significantly aid judicial economy if the claims are abated rather than dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Counts 7 through 14 without prejudice.

B. Breach of Contract

Defendants have moved to dismiss the breach of contract claims for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs respond that Plaintiffs have alleged the basic elements of a breach of contract claim under Florida law, the issuance of an insuring agreement, the breach of the agreement, and resulting damages. Plaintiffs argue that to the extent that additional information beyond the elements of the claim is needed, such information can be obtained in discovery.

1. Standard of Review

"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "[Derailed factual allegations" are not required, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), but the Rule does call for sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," id., at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556. Two working principles underlie Twombly. First, the tenet that a court must accept a complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to threadbare recitals of a cause of action's elements, supported by mere conclusory statements. Id., at 555. Second, only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific, requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and common sense, Id., at 556. Abort considering a motion to dismiss may begin by identifying allegations that, because they are mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the complaint's framework, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1955-1956 (2009)(quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Because the Second Amended Complaint includes no facts that will allow the Court to determine whether Plaintiffs has raised plausible claims, the Court will grant Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to this issue. The insurance policies attached to the Second Amended Complaint have not clarified the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants. The primary policies are portfolio policies; it is not clear what properties or coverages are involved in the breach of contract claims. Based on the Exhibits attached to the Second Amended Complaint, the Court understands only that in some way Plaintiffs' claims relate to termite damage in some real property, or properties.

Plaintiffs have included six separate breach of contract claims against Defendants. In asserting that Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with notice of their claim, that each Defendant denied Plaintiffs' claims, and that each Defendant has breached the insuring agreement, the Court understands that Plaintiffs' theory is that whatever Plaintiffs included in the Plaintiffs' claims of loss is within the coverage of the applicable insurance policy. Ultimately, the Court will need to determine whether Plaintiffs' alleged claims are within the coverage afforded by the insurance policies, or fall within an exclusion within those policies. At this point, the Court does not know what Plaintiffs' claims are, what coverage provision of each insurance policy is involved, or whether there are exclusion provisions which apply. Plaintiffs shall include a concise factual statement which explains the nature of Plaintiffs' claims, when the loss occurred, when Plaintiffs' discovered the loss, and which provision of the applicable insurance policy Defendants breached in failing to pay Plaintiffs' claims and/or how Defendants otherwise breached the applicable insurance policies; those facts will allow the Court to evaluate whether Plaintiffs allege plausible claims. If necessary, Plaintiffs may attach a copy of the Claim of Loss that Plaintiffs submitted to each Defendant.

After consideration, the Court grants Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), with leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within fourteen days as specified. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that:

Counts 7 through 14 are dismissed without prejudice. Defendants' Motions to Strike or Abate (Dkts. 5, 30, 35) are granted in part and otherwise denied. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 6, 19, 30, 35.) are granted in part; Plaintiffs shall file a Third Amended Complaint within fourteen days as specified above. The Motions are otherwise denied without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED.