High 5 Sportswear, Inc. v. H5G, LLC, 3:15-cv-00401

High Five Sportswear sued H5G (incorrectly styled High 5 Gear, Inc.) for trademark infringement, deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition.
H5G (as third-party plaintiff) sued its insurer, Selective Insurance, seeking declaratory judgment that the insurer must defend and indemnify H5G, and asserted breach of contract and bad faith claims.
Selective answered the third-party complaint, asserting an Answer, counterclaim, and 20 affirmative defenses; H5G moved to strike 18 of those defenses for failing to plead facts making them plausible.
The challenged defenses chiefly invoked policy terms, coverage exclusions (including trademark/copyright and knowing violations), statute of limitations, failure to mitigate, comparative fault, caps on damages, and reservation of additional defenses.
The central procedural question was whether the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses, and whether Selective’s general-form defenses gave fair notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses	Twombly/Iqbal requires affirmative defenses plead factual detail to be plausible	Twombly/Iqbal do not govern affirmative defenses; general notice pleading suffices	Court: Twombly/Iqbal do not apply to affirmative defenses; use Sixth Circuit fair‑notice standard
Whether Selective’s policy-based defenses (exclusions, definitions, coverage timing) are sufficiently pleaded	Defenses are conclusory and lack factual support; should be stricken	Defenses give fair notice of the policy provisions and exclusions relied upon	Court: Policy‑based defenses adequate for pleading purposes; not stricken
Whether other asserted defenses (statute of limitations, waiver/estoppel, mitigation, damages caps, non‑insured status, bad faith defenses) are sufficiently pleaded	These defenses lack factual particularity and are implausible	General pleading of these defenses gives fair notice and reserves rights	Court: These defenses give fair notice and are not subject to Twombly/Iqbal; motion to strike denied

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifying Twombly pleading standard)
Lawrence v. Chabot, [citation="182 F. App'x 442"] (6th Cir.) (affirmative defenses may be pleaded in general terms; fair notice standard)
Montgomery v. Wyeth, 580 F.3d 455 (6th Cir.) (discussion of pleading standards)
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819 (6th Cir.) (motions to strike under Rule 12(f) disfavored and sparingly used)