Wadsworth et al v. State Farm Mutual Autombile Insurance Company

Filing 28

ORDER granting 23 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' bad faith claim in Count III of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 11/27/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JAMES ROBERT WADSWORTH and
KAREN ANN WADSWORTH,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:17-cv-502-FtM-99CM

STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint (Doc. 23) filed on November 6, 2017, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s bad-faith
insurance claim (Count III). Plaintiffs have not filed a response and the time to do so has
expired. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
This case arose from an automobile insurance coverage dispute between James
Robert Wadsworth and his insurance carrier after he sustained injuries while crossing a
street. (Doc. 22, ¶ 4). In the aftermath of the incident, James Robert Wadsworth sought

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites.
These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked
documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or
products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to
some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

compensation from the owner of the vehicle, and ultimately settled his claim. (Id. at ¶ 8).
Subsequent to the settlement, he then demanded underinsured motorist coverage from
a State Farm insurance policy he had previously procured. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 14). When
State Farm failed to pay, Plaintiffs instituted the instant suit for breach of
contract/underinsured (UM) motorist benefits (Count I), loss of consortium (Count II), and
bad faith and unfair claims practices (Count III). Now, State Farm moves to dismiss Count
III of the Complaint, arguing the claim does not accrue until there has been a favorable
resolution of the coverage issue.
This is not the first time Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendant’s argument
that Plaintiffs’ premature bad faith claim should be dismissed. Previously, the Court
allowed Plaintiffs to file a belated Response to Defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.
11). In that Response, Plaintiffs agreed that a bad faith claim is not ripe until the
underlying coverage has been determined, stating, “the only question for this court is
whether the bad faith claim should be abated or dismissed pending that determination.”
(Doc. 15, ¶ 3). Plaintiffs argue that abatement, rather than dismissal is appropriate.
Seeing that the first Complaint was a shotgun pleading, the Court did not rule on
the substance of the Motion, but noted that it maintained serious doubt as to the viability
of Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim at this stage of the litigation. (Doc. 21, p. 2). Still, Plaintiffs
included the bad faith claim in their Amended Complaint (Doc. 22, Count III).
DISCUSSION
Florida, by statute, imposes a duty on insurers to settle their policyholders’ claims
in good faith. Fla. Stat. § 624.155. “Before a policyholder may file a bad-faith lawsuit in
which she alleges that her UM insurer failed to settle a meritorious claim in good faith,

2

she must first establish that her claim was, indeed, meritorious.”

Bottini v. Geico, 859

F.3d 987, 993 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575
So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991). “She does so by obtaining a determination that her insurer
is contractually liable under her UM insurance policy.” Id. The determination of liability
and the extent of damages are elements of a cause of action for bad faith. Id. (quoting
Vest v. Travelers Ins. Co., 753 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2000). See also Allstate Indem.
Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1124 (Fla. 2005).
Here, it is undisputed the bad faith claim is not yet ripe because it is contingent
upon Plaintiffs prevailing on the underlying UM breach of contract claim. That being the
case, the question is whether the unripe claim should be stayed pending a successful
outcome of the UM claim, or dismissed without prejudice to be refiled. Courts have not
settled on a single course of action for handling unripe bad faith claims simultaneously
filed with coverage claims. See Bele v. 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co., 126 F. Supp.
3d 1293, 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (collecting cases). Some courts have dismissed the claim
without prejudice, reasoning they are not justiciable claims under Article III of the United
States Constitution, while others have abated the claims, citing judicial economy. See
Shvartsman v. Geico, Case No. 6:17-cv-437-Orl-28KRS, 2017 WL 2734083, *1 (M.D. Fla.
June 22, 2017) (collecting cases). “Ultimately, the decision of whether to abate or dismiss
without prejudice rests in the sound discretion of the Court.” Id. (citing Vanguard Fire &
Cas. Co. v. Golmon, 955 So. 2d 591, 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The Florida Supreme
Court has found that abatement is appropriate and favored. Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co.
of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214, 1229 (Fla. 2016).

3

Here, Plaintiffs argued that abatement would be preferred to conserve judicial
resources. (Doc. 15, ¶ 7). However, the Court agrees with the reasoning in the group of
cases that have dismissed unripe bad faith claims without prejudice. Notably, those
decisions have recognized that Florida state courts do not have the same jurisdictional
requirements as federal courts do under Article III, which prevents federal courts from
adjudicating cases that are unripe for review or rest upon contingent future events that
may not occur. See Natl. Advertising Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1335, 1339 (11th Cir.
2005). Because that is the case here, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ unripe bad faith
claim without prejudice to refiling if the UM contract claim is favorably resolved.2
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim in Count III of the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 27th day of November, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2

Although Plaintiffs have not filed a response to the second Motion to Dismiss, the Court has
considered the arguments made by Plaintiffs in response to the first Motion to Dismiss, seeking
dismissal of the first Complaint, which was nearly identical to the Amended Complaint.

4