Arencibia v. AGA Service Company
1:20-cv-24694
S.D. Fla.Apr 8, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Ibaldo Arencibia bought a travel insurance add‑on from Allianz while booking an American Airlines flight, believing it provided broad, no‑fault trip cancellation coverage.
- Allianz sent a 36‑page policy and an email post‑purchase; the policy explicitly stated it was a named‑perils policy with terms, conditions, and exclusions and provided a 10‑day free‑look cancellation period.
- Plaintiff cancelled his trip for a work conflict, filed a claim, and Allianz denied coverage because the reason was not a covered named peril.
- Plaintiff sued Allianz (AGA) and Jefferson (underwriter) asserting class claims: declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, FDUTPA, RICO, and various claims against American Airlines (AA); AA was dismissed earlier and the remaining claims proceeded against Allianz and Jefferson.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the Court granted the motion and dismissed Counts I (declaratory), III (unjust enrichment), IV (FDUTPA), and V (RICO) with prejudice, concluding plaintiff failed to plead viable claims and alteration would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment (Count III) | Allianz and Jefferson were unjustly enriched by selling a misleading "insurance" product and keeping premiums/commissions | Claim is preempted by Florida insurance law (no private right for these statutory provisions) and barred by an express contract (the policy) | Dismissed — preempted by FUITPA-related law and precluded by the express policy/contract |
| FDUTPA (Count IV) | Marketing language gave a reasonable consumer the net impression of broad, no‑fault coverage | FDUTPA exemption applies because activity is regulated by Florida Insurance Code; no plausible deception given conspicuous terms and policy access | Dismissed — FDUTPA claim barred by statutory exemption and insufficiently pleaded deception |
| RICO (Count V) | Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers via mail/wire fraud and related predicate acts | Complaint fails to plead actionable misrepresentations, pattern of predicate acts, or cognizable RICO injury; prior dismissal as to AA controls | Dismissed — failed to plead mail/wire fraud predicates and RICO injury; law‑of‑the‑case supports dismissal |
| Declaratory judgment (Count I) | Requests declaration about coverage and rights under the policy | Declaratory relief depends on viable underlying claims | Dismissed — procedural remedy cannot survive where substantive claims are dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)
- H.J., Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (RICO requires related predicates and threat/amount of continued criminal activity)
- Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (scheme to defraud requires material misrepresentations and intent to deceive for mail/wire fraud predicates)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Silver Star Health & Rehab, 739 F.3d 579 (discusses when unjust enrichment is permissible alongside statutory remedies)
- Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983 (Florida Supreme Court on judicial creation of remedies where legislature withheld a private right)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine governs repeated adjudication of same legal issues)