Coleman v. Cubesmart
328 F. Supp. 3d 1349
S.D. Fla.2018Background
- Coleman rented a CubeSmart storage unit and purchased a Great American self-storage insurance policy offered by CubeSmart; CubeSmart received a portion of each premium.
- Rental agreement required insurance, stated owner does not insure contents, and indicated premiums were collected for a third-party insurer; the insurance form stated a "portion" covers CubeSmart's expense as collection agent.
- Coleman alleges CubeSmart retained substantial commissions beyond mere expense reimbursement, concealing a profit center and creating a misleading "net impression."
- Coleman asserted five counts: FDUTPA (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), unconscionability (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count V).
- Magistrate Judge Goodman recommended denying CubeSmart’s motion to dismiss as to Counts I, II, and V, but dismissing Counts III (unconscionability) and IV (unjust enrichment) without prejudice and with leave to amend; District Judge Martinez adopted the recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for money allegedly retained | Coleman paid premiums and seeks recovery of portion CubeSmart kept; that is a concrete injury | CubeSmart: Coleman received the insurance he bargained for, so no injury | Coleman has standing based on plausible injury and traceability to alleged misrepresentations |
| FDUTPA — deceptive practice (net impression/pass‑through) | Representations + omissions create reasonable consumer impression that only expense reimbursement was retained; undisclosed profit is deceptive | CubeSmart: no duty to disclose profit; disclosures were adequate and literal statements truthful | FDUTPA claim survives; reasonable-consumer/net-impression is a fact issue (Latman applies) |
| Breach of contract | Rental agreement and related forms create expectations that premiums are for third-party insurer; keeping excess funds can breach contract | CubeSmart: alleged misstatement arises from separate insurance form (not CubeSmart’s), or merely an acknowledgment; CubeSmart is not party to that form | Breach claim survives at pleading stage — factual issues about contract incorporation and meaning are for later stages |
| Unconscionability as an independent damages claim | Coleman pleads contract terms are unconscionable and seeks damages | CubeSmart: unconscionability typically prevents enforcement; courts do not award money damages on that theory | Unconscionability claim dismissed without prejudice; damages not recoverable under unconscionability theory |
| Unjust enrichment | Pleaded as alternative remedy | CubeSmart: existence of contract precludes unjust enrichment; claim not pled as alternative or alleging lack of adequate remedy | Unjust-enrichment claim dismissed without prejudice for pleading defects; plaintiff may amend to plead it in the alternative and allege no adequate legal remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., 758 So.2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding itemized "port charges" that were partially retained by cruise line were deceptive under state law as pass-through charges)
- Carriuolo v. Gen. Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) (FDUTPA requires deceptive act or unfair practice, causation, and actual damages; deception judged by reasonable consumer standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleadings must contain factual content allowing plausible inference of liability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)