Background

• Baltazar filed suit against Balboa Insurance in Florida state court for sinkhole loss coverage; Balboa removed to federal court as a California insurer for a home in Florida with $105,000 policy limit.
• Balboa moved to dismiss alleging Baltazar has no standing as he is neither named insured nor third-party beneficiary.
• Baltazar argues he has insurable interest as the homeowner and thus standing to sue under Florida law.
• The court analyzes standing under Fla. Stat. § 627.405, defining insurable interest as a substantial economic interest in preserving the property.
• The court notes authorities allowing enforcement of an insurable interest by a property owner or third-party beneficiary even if they lack a policy in their name; it applies these principles to Baltazar’s homeowner status.
• The court denies Balboa’s motion to dismiss, concluding Baltazar has an insurable interest and standing to pursue the claim.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Aetna Ins. Co. v. King, 265 So.2d 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972) (insurable interest focuses on substantial economic interest, not mere title)
• Norfolk & Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 281 So.2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (third-party beneficiaries may enforce policy terms)
• James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Eng’g, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2008) (pleading standards; plausibility required for relief)
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires non-conclusory allegations)
• Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
• United Technologies Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (clarifies pleading standards in the Eleventh Circuit)