SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Dawn Labbato. (Doc. No. 17). Defendant Dawn Labbato opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 18). As explained below, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company alleges the following in its complaint (Doc. No. 1): Allstate provided automobile insurance for Defendant Daniel Hanley that was in effect on October 18, 2012. On that date, Defendant Jonathon Hanley stole the car that Daniel Hanley was renting from Enterprise, and Jonathon Hanley drove the car and struck Defendant Dawn Labbato. Thereafter, Daniel Hanley pressed charges against Jonathon Hanley for stealing the rental car.
Labbato filed suit against both Hanleys in state court, and Allstate provided a defense to Daniel Hanley in the underlying state court proceeding. However, Allstate filed the instant action for a declaratory judgment that Allstate's insurance policy does not provide coverage for this collision and that Allstate does not have a duty to defend or indemnify the Hanleys against Labbato's claims. Specifically, Allstate contends that the policy excludes coverage for rental cars that are driven by non-resident relatives.
In response to the complaint, Labbato filed an answer and affirmative defenses. (Doc. No. 8). In the instant motion, Allstate moves to strike the first seven affirmative defenses.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that the Court may order that "any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" be stricken from a pleading. "A motion to strike will `usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.'"
"An affirmative defense will only be stricken . . . if the defense is `insufficient as a matter of law.'"
Plaintiff moves to strike Labbato's first seven affirmative defenses. Accordingly, the Court will analyze each affirmative defense.
In her first affirmative defense, Labbato alleges that Allstate failed to comply with Florida Statute § 627.426. That statute provides the conditions that must be met before an insurer can deny coverage based on a coverage defense. Allstate argues that this affirmative defense must be stricken, because Labbato (as a third-party who is not a judgment creditor of the insured) lacks standing to enforce § 627.426.
Labbato responds that just because she cannot currently enforce § 627.426, that does not mean the affirmative defense should be stricken. Furthermore, she argues that whether she "will receive an assignment of any rights under the Allstate policy . . . remains to be seen," and if she does, "she would stand in the shoes of the first-party insureds and would be entitled to raise the same defenses as them." (Doc. No. 18, p. 4).
At this time, this affirmative defense is unavailable to Labbato, and as such, the Court agrees that it should be stricken. Should the facts and circumstances change at a later date, she can move to amend her affirmative defenses.
In her second affirmative defense, Labbato alleges that "Allstate's claim is barred by the doctrine of laches." (Doc. No. 8, p. 4). No further detail is provided, and on that basis alone, Allstate argues that this affirmative is due to be dismissed.
In order to prevail on the affirmative defense of laches, the defendant must show that there was an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in asserting its rights that caused undue prejudice to the defendant.
In her third affirmative defense, Labbato alleges that Allstate waived its coverage defenses by virtue of how it handled prior claims involving Jonathon Hanley's use of Daniel Hanley's vehicle. In order to prevail on the affirmative defense of waiver, the defendant must show: "(1) the existence at the time of the waiver of a right, privilege, advantage, or benefits that may be waived; (2) the actual or constructive knowledge thereof; and (3) an intention to relinquish that right, privilege, advantage or benefit."
Allstate moves to strike this affirmative defense, arguing that Allstate's conduct with respect to claims of others (in which Labbato was not directly involved) cannot constitute a waiver of Allstate's rights with respect to Labbato's claim. Labbato responds that Allstate misconstrues her defense, and instead, she is asserting that Allstate has taken inconsistent positions in the past regarding whether it would cover claims resulting from Jonathon Hanley driving Daniel Hanley's vehicles. While Labbato raises an issue that she may pursue in discovery, an allegation that Allstate has taken inconsistent positions in the past regarding whether it would cover
In her fourth affirmative defense, Labbato alleges that Allstate is estopped from denying coverage because it undertook the defense of Daniel Hanley without properly reserving its rights. This defense, like her first affirmative defense, is based on Florida Statute § 627.426. For the same reasons that the Court has stricken Labbato's first affirmative defense, the Court strikes this affirmative defense.
In her fifth affirmative defense (which is numbered "3" and is the second affirmative defense labeled number 3
Labbato responds that Allstate misunderstands her defense, which is that this declaratory judgment action is improper to the extent that Allstate could ask the Court to address issues arising in her underlying case against the Hanleys, such as liability, causation, and damages. However, the Court does not intend to address those issues, and as such, this is not a proper affirmative defense. Accordingly, the Court agrees that this purported affirmative defense should be stricken.
In her sixth affirmative defense, Labbato alleges that she may be entitled to attorneys' fees under Florida Statute § 627.428. Section 627.428(1) provides: "Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state against an insurer and in favor of any named or omnibus insured . . ., the trial court . . . shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the insured . . . a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the insured's . . . attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is had."
Allstate moves to strike this affirmative defense because Labbato is not a named insured under the policy. Labbato responds that she may qualify as an "omnibus insured" and/or receive an assignment of rights from the insured and/or may ultimately make other claims that would support an attorney fee award. As explained below, the Court rejects Labbato's arguments.
At this time, Labbato has not received an assignment of rights from the insured, and as such, this is not a basis to assert her entitlement to attorneys' fees. Likewise, if Labbato later receives such an assignment and/or later asserts some claim that would support an attorneys' fee award, she can move to assert her right to attorneys' fees at that time.
Finally, the Court rejects Labbato's argument that she is an omnibus insured. In 1977, the Florida Supreme Court found that third-party claimants were not entitled to attorneys' fees under a prior version of § 627.428(1).
In
Thereafter, in
Thus, based on the above case law, Labbato cannot be considered an omnibus insured that could be entitled to attorneys' fees under § 627.428. As such, the Court agrees that this purported affirmative defense should be stricken.
In her seventh affirmative defense, Labbato alleges that "Allstate cannot enforce any exclusion or limitation on coverage which [is] contrary to the mandatory minimum coverage requirements of Florida law, including but not limited to Chapter 320 and Chapter 627 of Florida Statutes." (Doc. No. 8, p. 4). Allstate moves to strike this affirmative defense, because Labbato does not allege any facts showing that mandatory minimum coverage requirements apply.
Labbato responds that Chapter 324 of the Florida Statutes might be implicated in this case.
Labbato contends that, while she does not currently know whether Allstate's policy was written to comply with Chapter 324, she should be permitted to assert this affirmative defense because discovery may reveal its applicability. The Court is not persuaded by this argument.
To begin with, the affirmative defense, as pled, does not reference Chapter 324. Furthermore, this case is straightforward—does Allstate's policy provide coverage for Labbato's injuries that resulted from Jonathon Hanley's use of Daniel Hanley's rental car. Should discovery reveal facts that make this purported affirmative defense relevant, Labbato can move to amend her affirmative defenses. However, at this time, the defense is stricken.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Dawn Labbato (Doc. No. 17) is