Chicken Kitchen USA, LLC v. Maiden Specialty Insurance Company, 1:14-cv-23282

Chicken Kitchen (owner of CHICKEN KITCHEN mark) sued Three Chefs and the McDonnoughs for trade dress infringement and related claims; Three Chefs sought defense from Maiden (its insurer under a CGL policy).
Maiden provided a defense to Three Chefs under a reservation of rights, refused to pay the insureds’ chosen counsel, and filed a declaratory action denying coverage.
The underlying parties settled the first lawsuit by consent judgment for trade dress infringement; Judge Huck entered the consent final judgment; this Court later held the Policy covered the advertising/trade-dress liability.
Chicken Kitchen (assignee of insureds’ rights) served a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) under Fla. Stat. § 624.155 and then sued Maiden for statutory bad faith, common-law bad faith, and punitive damages after prior appellate proceedings concluded.
Maiden moved to dismiss Counts I (statutory bad faith) and III (punitive damages). The Court denied dismissal of Count I (CRN sufficient) but dismissed Count III without prejudice for failure to plead a general business practice or sufficient factual allegations supporting punitive damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CRN satisfied § 624.155 specificity and cure requirements so statutory bad-faith suit may proceed	CRN sufficiently identified statutes, facts, relevant policy language, and put Maiden on notice; § 624.155 does not require a specific dollar demand and prior joint filings identified the $1.2M consent judgment	CRN failed to state how Maiden could cure the alleged violations (no specific cure amount), so condition precedent not met	Denied dismissal—CRN was sufficiently specific; cure amount not required; Department accepted CRN, and facts/policy language put Maiden on notice
Whether punitive damages claim adequately pleaded under § 624.155(5) (requires general business practice and willful/reckless conduct)	Plaintiff sought judicial notice of other suits against Maiden to show general business practice and argued pleadings alleged company-wide practices	Maiden argued Count III is a formulaic recitation lacking factual allegations showing frequency or a business practice; unsworn complaints in other cases cannot prove practice	Granted dismissal without prejudice—Count III is a bare recitation; other lawsuits/unsworn complaints cannot establish general business practice; leave to amend granted

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility standard for pleading)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must contain factual content to state a plausible claim)
Watts v. Florida Int’l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2007) (accept factual allegations as true on a motion to dismiss)
Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (two-pronged approach to Iqbal/Twombly analysis)
United States v. Berrojo, 628 F.2d 368 (5th Cir. 1980) (judicial notice may be taken of readily verifiable facts)
United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549 (11th Cir. 1994) (court may judicially notice filings in other courts for the fact of litigation, not the truth of allegations)
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (prior Fifth Circuit decisions adopted as binding precedent in Eleventh Circuit)