RLI Insurance Company v. Outsidein Architecture, LLC
ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law 18 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 7/14/2021. (CSS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
RLI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No: 8:20-cv-2395-CEH-AEP
OUTSIDEIN ARCHITECTURE, LLC,
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Strike
Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [Doc.
18], Defendant’s Response in Opposition [Doc. 22], Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief in
Support of its Motion to Strike the Sixth Affirmative Defense [Doc. 29], and
Defendant’s Response to the Supplemental Brief [Doc. 30]. Having been duly advised,
the Court will DENY the motion to strike.
Plaintiff RLI Insurance Company filed this action for damages and declaratory
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to establish there is no coverage under a claims-made
and reported, professional liability insurance contract issued to its insured Outsidein
Architecture. [Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1, 25]. The Complaint alleges that a claim was made against
Defendant before Plaintiff’s policy period, which commenced on March 18, 2020, but
was not disclosed in Defendant’s insurance application. Id. ¶¶ 22-24, 31. Plaintiff
therefore alleges that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant in the lawsuit
relating to the claim that was made before the policy period. Id. ¶¶ 32, 36, 41, 50. The
Complaint asserts claims for no coverage under the terms and exclusions of the policy
(Counts I -III), recission of the policy (Count IV), and reimbursement (Count V).
Defendant answered the complaint and asserted various affirmative defenses.
[Doc. 12]. Plaintiff moved to strike several of the affirmative defense, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), including Defendant’s first, second, third,
fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and eleventh affirmative defenses. [Doc. 18 at p.
1]. Plaintiff argues that these affirmative defenses are redundant denials or simply not
legally valid defenses under Florida law. In response, Defendant contends its defenses
are legally sufficient and present relevant legal issues and bona fide issues of fact. [Doc.
22 p. 2]. After the Court heard arguments, Defendant withdrew its Sixth Affirmative
Defense alleging bad faith. [Doc. 30 ¶ 4].
Pursuant to Rule 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f). “The purpose of a motion to strike is to clean up the pleadings, streamline
litigation, and avoid unnecessary forays into immaterial matters.” S.Y. v. Naples Hotel
Co., No. 2:20-CV-118-JES-MRM, 2020 WL 4504976, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2020)
(quoting Hutchings v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4186994, *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8,
2008)). Striking matters from a pleading is a drastic remedy and is disfavored. See
Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Centers E., LLC, 211 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1348 (M.D. Fla.
2002); Hill v. State Farm Ins. Co., 181 F. Supp. 3d 980, 988 (M.D. Fla. 2016). “[A] court
will not exercise its discretion under the rule to strike a pleading unless the matter
sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the
issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp.
574, 576 (M.D. Fla. 1995); Antoine v. Sch. Bd. of Collier Cty., Fla., No. 2:16-CV-379DNF, 2019 WL 913358, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2019) (stating same).
Having considered the Affirmative Defenses at issue, 1 they are not legally
insufficient or redundant. Additionally, it has not been established that the affirmative
defenses bear no possible relationship to the controversy. Rather, they are relevant to
factual and legal issues presented in this case and they include much more than just a
denial of various paragraphs from the complaint. In fact, the affirmative defenses
provide adequate information to give Plaintiff sufficient notice of the arguments
asserted by Defendant. As such, the motion to strike is DENIED.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law [Doc. 18] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 14, 2021.
This excludes the Sixth Affirmative Defense alleging bad faith, which has been withdrawn.
Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any
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?