Elite Roofing and Restoration LLC v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company
2:19-cv-00352
M.D. Fla.Jul 17, 2019Background
- Elite Roofing and Restoration, LLC sued for declaratory judgment to determine whether Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company’s policy covered property damage from Hurricane Irma; the Schuchmans assigned their claim to Elite Roofing.
- Metropolitan denied coverage; Elite Roofing filed in state court and Metropolitan removed the action to federal court.
- Metropolitan moved to dismiss the petition, relying on Florida procedural requirements for declaratory-judgment actions, standing, and attaching the insurance policy to the complaint.
- Elite Roofing did not file a response to the motion to dismiss.
- The Court applied Erie principles and federal procedural law, declining to treat Florida procedural rules as controlling after removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida declaratory-judgment pleading requirements control | Elite relies on federal Declaratory Judgment Act procedures after removal | Metropolitan argues state DJA procedures must be satisfied | Court: Federal DJA applies; state procedural requirements not controlling; defense foreclosed by removal |
| Whether Metropolitan can rely on Florida offer-of-judgment protections | Elite proceeds in federal court under federal procedures | Metropolitan says it will lose Fla. Stat. § 768.79 benefits if case proceeds | Court: Metropolitan waived that by removing; not a basis to dismiss |
| Standing based on assignment of policy benefits | Elite claims assignment from both Schuchmans gives standing | Metropolitan contends Mike Schuchman does not own insured property and attached state documents to challenge standing | Court: Accepts complaint allegation that Schuchmans were insured; declines to consider Metropolitan’s state-court exhibits; standing adequately pleaded |
| Requirement to attach the insurance policy to complaint | Elite did not attach the policy; argues federal rules permit permissive exhibits | Metropolitan says Florida rule requires attaching the policy | Court: Under federal procedure, attaching the policy is not mandatory; failure to attach is not grounds to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law)
- Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir.) (federal DJA controls in federal court)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Prasad, 991 F.2d 669 (11th Cir.) (actions under Declaratory Judgment Act need not comply with forum-state DJA procedures)
- Chandler v. Secretary, Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 695 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir.) (court accepts factual allegations as true when deciding a motion to dismiss)