Maryland Casualty Company v. Employment Partners, Inc.
Filing
22
ORDER: Defendant Employment Partners Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss 12 is DENIED as to Count II and GRANTED as to Count III. Plaintiff has until and including November 24, 2014, to file its Amended Complaint. Defendant has until and including December 1, 2014, to file its Answer to the Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 11/7/2014. (AKH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:14-cv-1912-T-33MAP
EMPLOYMENT PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant
Employment Partners, Inc.’s (EPI) Motion to Dismiss Count Two
and Count Three of Plaintiff, Maryland Casualty Company’s
(MCC) Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. #
12), filed on October 24, 2014. MCC filed a response in
opposition to the Motion on November 7, 2014. (Doc. # 18).
For the reasons stated below, the Motion is denied in part
and granted in part.
I.
Background
MCC initiated this action against EPI on August 8, 2014,
alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and account stated. (Doc. # 1). MCC contends that
it “issued a policy of workers’ compensation insurance to EPI
under Policy No. WC 04177632-00 for the effective dates of
May 28, 2010 to May 28, 2011 (the ‘Policy’).” (Id. at 2). MCC
states that “[p]ursuant to the terms of the Policy, the
initial premiums were based on information submitted by EPI
and/or its insurance broker regarding EPI’s estimated payroll
for the effective dates of coverage.” (Id.). According to
MCC, EPI made payments to MCC in the amount of $33,636.34.
(Id.). MCC contends that EPI is indebted to MCC in the amount
of $132,743.66 for unpaid premiums. (Id. at 3). However, MCC
suggests that “EPI has failed, refused, and continues to
refuse to pay the balance due and owing to MCC, thereby
resulting in damages to MCC . . . .” (Id.). The present Motion
was filed on October 24, 2014. (Doc. # 12). The Court notes
that EPI seeks to dismiss only Count II – Unjust Enrichment
– and Count III – Account Stated – and therefore will analyze
only those claims.
II. Legal Standard
On a motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true all
of the factual allegations in the complaint and construes
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jackson v.
Bellsouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004).
Further, this Court favors the plaintiff with all reasonable
inferences from the allegations in the complaint. Stephens v.
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1571, 1573 (11th
2
Cir. 1990)(“On a motion to dismiss, the facts stated in [the]
complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom are taken
as true.”). However, the Supreme Court explains that:
While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide
the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal
citations omitted). Further, courts are not “bound to accept
as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).
In
accordance
with
Twombly,
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure 8(a) calls “for sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A plausible claim for relief must
include “factual content [that] allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id.
III. Analysis
A. Unjust Enrichment
3
EPI
contends
that
MCC
may
not
pursue
its
unjust
enrichment claim because “the theory of unjust enrichment is
equitable in nature and is, therefore, not available where
there is an adequate legal remedy.” (Doc. # 12 at 2)(citing
Webster v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 124 F. Supp. 2d
1317, 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2000)). However, the Court finds that
MCC may plead an equitable relief claim in the alternative to
its breach of contract claim. See e.g., Resnick v. AvMed,
Inc. 693 F.3d 1317, 1327-29 (11th Cir. 2012); Shibata v. Lim,
133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (“Both the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida law permit a party to
allege,
in
the
alternative,
recovery
under
an
express
contract and seek equitable relief under the theory of unjust
enrichment.”).
Therefore,
the
Court
will
analyze
the
sufficiency of MCC’s unjust enrichment claim.
To state a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must
allege,
“(1)
the
plaintiff
conferred
a
benefit
on
the
defendant, who had knowledge of the benefit, (2) the defendant
voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit, and (3) under
the circumstances it would be inequitable for the defendant
to retain the benefit without paying for it.” Leedom Mgmt.
Grp., Inc. v. Perlmutter, No. 8:11-cv-2108-T-33TBM, 2012 WL
1883765, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2012).
4
Here, MCC has alleged that
(1) MCC has provided insurance coverage and related
services to EPI for which EPI has refused to pay,
(2) EPI has been unjustly enriched by the receipt
of such coverage and services to MCC’s detriment,
(3) MCC has repeatedly demanded that EPI remit
payment of the amounts due and owing to MCC, and
(4) EPI has failed, refused and continues to refuse
to pay the balance due and owing to MCC, thereby
result in in damages to MCC in the amount of
$132,743.66, plus interest, attorney fees and
costs.
(Doc. # 1 at 4-5). Thus, taking the allegations as true, for
purposes of the present analysis only, MCC has demonstrated
enough to survive EPI’s Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, EPI’s
Motion as to Count II is denied.
B. Account Stated
“An ‘account stated’ is defined as an agreement between
persons who have had previous transactions, fixing the amount
due in respect to such transactions and promising payment.”
Nants v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 864 F. Supp. 1211, 1219
(S.D.
Fla.
1994),
citing
1
Fla.
Jur.
2d
Accounts
and
Accounting § 5. “[A]n account stated generally arises from
the rendition of a statement of transactions between the
parties with a failure on the part of the party whom the
account was rendered to object within a reasonable time or an
5
express acquiescence in the account rendered.” Nants, 864 F.
Supp. at 1219.
A plaintiff may prove a prima facie case for account
stated by proffering evidence that the account was rendered
under circumstances which raise a presumption of assent. Id.
at 1219–20. The practice of periodic billings for certain
amounts in the regular course of business, where no objection
to the amount of the bill is made within a reasonable time,
may raise such a presumption. Id. (citing F.D.I.C. v. Brodie,
602 So. 2d 1358, 1361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)); see also First
Union Disc. Brokerage Servs., Inc. v. Milos, 997 F.2d 835,
841 (11th Cir. 1993). “[T]he presumption of correctness which
attaches in an account stated stems from the statements
themselves.” See Nants at 1221 (noting “a copy of the account
showing items, time of accrual of each, and amount of each
must be attached”). Upon a review of the allegations contained
in the Complaint, the Court concludes that MCC has failed to
attach copies of the insurance policy upon which this action
is
based
and
its
billing
statements
directed
to
EPI
as
exhibits to the Complaint. As a result, EPI’s Motion to
Dismiss is granted as to Count III.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
6
(1)
Defendant Employment Partners Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. # 12) is DENIED as to Count II and GRANTED as to
Count III.
(2)
Plaintiff has until and including November 24, 2014, to
file its Amended Complaint.
(3)
Defendant has until and including December 1, 2014, to
file its Answer to the Amended Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th
day of November, 2014.
Copies: All Counsel of Record
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?