Martorella v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
931 F. Supp. 2d 1218
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Martorella mortgaged a Florida property; Deutsche Bank is the note holder and AHMSI acts as loan servicer.
- AHMSI, as Deutsche Bank’s agent, force-placed insurance (Empire) when it claimed Martorella lacked coverage, tripling premiums.
- Foreclosure occurred in June 2009 due to AHMSI’s miscalculation of premiums and fulfillment of escrow, which Martorella disputed.
- AHMSI cancelled the force-placed policy in August 2009 but retained one month of charges.
- Plaintiff asserts four counts: FDUTPA, breach of mortgage covenant of good faith and fair dealing, FCCPA, and unjust enrichment; seeks class and three subclasses relief.
- Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss after applying standard Twombly/Iqbal review and determining the complaint plausibly states claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDUTPA elements satisfied. | Martorella argues excessive force-placed premiums, with kickbacks, violate unfairness; causation and damages alleged. | Defendants contend no deceptive act or harm in trade or commerce; no cognizable damages. | Counts I–IV state a plausible FDUTPA claim. |
| Covenant of good faith and fair dealing supports breach claim. | Discretion to force-place insurance was exercised capriciously for profits. | Covenant not breached absent breach of express contract term. | Pleadings show potential breach; issue for trial. |
| FCCPA claim viability for debt collection. | Defendants’ communications to pay for force-placed policy constitute debt collection; actual knowledge alleged. | Argues not debt collection and lacks knowledge allegations. | FCCPA claim survives; communications fall within debt collection. |
| Unjust enrichment pleaded in alternative to contract. | Can plead unjust enrichment alongside express contract claims. | No quasi-contract claim if express contract governs; premature to dismiss. | Alternative pleading permitted; viable until contract proven. |
| Class action allegations at this stage. | Certification issues are premature; discovery will shape class posture. | Class issues should be resolved early; atypicality may undermine class. | Court declines to determine class certification on motion to dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for survival of complaint)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; factual allegations must be more than mere conclusions)
- Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2001) (requirement that complaint allege material elements; inferential allegations suffice)
- Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc., 732 So.2d 1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (implied covenant gap-filler; discretion must be exercised in good faith)
- Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, LLP, 678 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2012) (communications related to debt collection can fall within FDCPA scope)
- Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 1999) (implied covenant limits discretionary power to align with contract purposes)
- Williams v. Edelman, 408 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (FDUTPA claim viability when injury occurs; damages may be actual)
- Schauer v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 819 So.2d 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (broad FDUTPA 'trade or commerce' interpretation)