45 Fla. L. Weekly D754b
Insurance — Homeowners — Post-loss obligations — Action by insurer against insured after insured property suffered water damage from water leak and insured failed to comply with requests to complete sworn proof of loss or appoint an appraiser — Trial court properly dismissed breach of contract claim where complaint did not allege element of damages — Court erred in dismissing claim for specific performance of policy’s provisions — Court also erred in dismissing claim for declaratory relief seeking declaration of insurer’s coverage obligations and whether it is entitled to void policy
PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. YESENIA VALENTIN, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-58. L.T. Case No. 18-22374. Opinion filed April 1, 2020. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge. Counsel: Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Mark D. Tinker (Tampa); Brett R. Frankel and Jonathan M. Sabghir (Deerfield Beach), for appellant. Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, P.L., and Steven E. Gurian and David F. Garcia, for appellee.
(Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.)
(GORDO, J.) People’s Trust Insurance Company appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its case, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action. People’s Trust filed a three-count complaint against the insured, Yesenia Valentin, seeking clarification of the parties’ respective obligations under the insurance policy. Upon Valentin’s motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding that there was no active case or controversy. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the request for injunctive relief1 and the count for breach of contract. We reverse the dismissal of the counts for specific performance and declaratory judgment because those causes of action were sufficiently pleaded2 to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Valentin’s property was insured by People’s Trust under a policy that included a Preferred Contractor Endorsement.3 In July of 2017, Valentin’s home sustained water damage from an apparent roof leak. According to the allegations of People’s Trust’s complaint, People’s Trust repeatedly requested several documents from Valentin prior to the filing of the underlying suit, including a sworn proof of loss. People’s Trust asserts that nearly a year after the subject loss, Valentin submitted a sworn proof of loss, but People’s Trust argued that it had not been properly filled out. People’s Trust also alleges that it invoked the policy’s appraisal provisions, but Valentin did not cooperate in that process. Valentin did, however, execute a work authorization, which authorized People’s Trust’s contractor to perform the covered repairs on the subject property.
At the end of June of 2018, upon Valentin’s failure to comply with its requests to fill out a completed sworn proof of loss or appoint an appraiser, People’s Trust filed suit. The complaint consisted of three counts, pleaded in the alternative: (I) mandatory injunction/specific performance, (II) declaratory judgment, and (III) breach of contract/rescission. Despite the fact that Valentin had authorized People’s Trust to perform repairs on the property, People’s Trust believed that her failure to comply with her post-loss obligations may have relieved it of its obligation to do so. As such, People’s Trust sought a declaration of its rights to determine whether it was entitled to rescind the contract or required to perform the covered repairs. Valentin filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing the trial court should dismiss the case due to the lack of a justiciable case or controversy.
The trial court granted Valentin’s motion in its entirety and planned to permit People’s Trust to amend its complaint. People’s Trust advised the court that there was nothing more it could do to fix the already extensively pleaded complaint and requested that dismissal be with prejudice. This appeal followed.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss is a question of law subject to de novo review. Siegle v. Progressive Consumers, Inc., 819 So. 2d 732, 734 (Fla. 2002). The court is “required to accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and to consider those allegations and any inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff].” Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84, 87 (Fla. 2005) (citing Siegle, 819 So. 2d at 734-35).
People’s Trust’s claim for breach of contract was properly dismissed. “The elements of a breach of contract action are: (1) a valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages.” Grove Isle Ass’n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081, 1094-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (citing Schiffman v. Schiffman, 47 So. 3d 925, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)). The complaint did not contain even a barebones allegation of damages and simply stated that damages in this case are “unavailable as a matter of law.” The complaint, therefore, failed to state a cause of action for breach of contract. Although typically People’s Trust would have been afforded an opportunity to amend its complaint, it declined to do so and instead specifically requested that the trial court dismiss with prejudice. Thus, this issue was not properly preserved for appeal.
Regarding the claim for specific performance, People’s Trust’s complaint alleges that there was a contract between the parties, the terms of which were clear and definite. “In order for a court of equity to decree specific performance of a contract, the terms of the agreement must be clear, definite, certain and complete.” Abundant Living Citi Church, Inc. v. Abundant Living Ministries, Inc., 213 So. 3d 1055, 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quoting Bay Club, Inc. v. Brickell Bay Club, Inc., 293 So. 2d 137, 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)). “[T]he equitable remedy of specific performance is granted only where the parties have actually entered into an agreement that is definite and certain in all of its essential elements.” Id. (quoting Bay Club, Inc., 293 So. 2d at 138). Given that the factual allegations in People’s Trust’s complaint supported the elements of a claim for specific performance, it was entitled to maintain this action. See People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Nowroozpour, 277 So. 3d 135, 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (finding that People’s Trust had the right to seek enforcement of the policy’s appraisal and repair provisions through a count for specific performance).
The count for declaratory relief was also sufficiently pleaded to withstand dismissal. The declaratory judgment act provides that a party in doubt about its rights under a contract or other instrument may seek a judicial declaration. § 86.021, Fla. Stat. (2019); see also Kelner v. Woody, 399 So. 2d 35, 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“The purpose of the declaratory judgment act is to afford relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and other equitable or legal relations, and is to be liberally construed . . . .” (citing § 86.101, Fla. Stat.)). “[Q]uestions of fact and disagreements concerning coverage under insurance policies are proper subjects for a declaratory judgment if necessary to a construction of legal rights.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Emery, 579 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Additionally, “[a]n insurer may file a declaratory action in order to determine whether an insurance policy is voidable.” Transp. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Soil Tech Distribs., Inc., 966 So. 2d 8, 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Clarke, 757 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). People’s Trust pleaded that it seeks a declaration of its coverage obligations and whether it is entitled to void the subject policy. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the dispute between the parties is a “proper subject[ ] for a declaratory judgment” at this stage of the proceedings. Travelers Ins. Co., 579 So. 2d at 801.
Taking the allegations in the complaint as true and considering them in the light most favorable to People’s Trust, it presented legally sufficient claims for specific performance and declaratory judgment against Valentin. Thus, we reverse the dismissal of those counts and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
__________________
1The parties concede that based on this Court’s holding in People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Acosta, 259 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the request for injunctive relief was properly dismissed because People’s Trust pleaded other counts demonstrating the availability of other forms of relief, e.g. monetary damages. Thus, that portion of the trial court’s order is affirmed without further discussion.
2“Pleaded has always been the predominant past-tense and past-participial form. . . . [It is not] considered quite standard in [American English], although it is a common variant in legal usage . . . . Still, pleaded, the vastly predominant form in both [American English] and [British English], is always the best choice . . . .” Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Modern English Usage 699-700 (4th ed. 2016).
3This endorsement permits People’s Trust to elect to repair damages using its preferred contractor, rather than paying the insured for the loss.
