23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 252b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2303HOLMInsurance — Automobile — Glass repair — Allegations of complaint seeking payment for glass repairs performed on insured vehicle were sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for more definite statement
EPIC AUTO GLASS, LLC, As Assignee of Selvin Holmes, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 6th Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division. Case No. 14-10167-SC. August 21, 2015. Honorable Edwin B. Jagger, Judge. Counsel: Marc B. Nussbaum, Reeder & Nussbaum, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Plaintiff. Brendan McKay, Banker Lopez Gassler, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVEMOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on July 27, 2015, on Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss or in the alternative Motion For More Definite Statement, with the court having heard the argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff filed the within lawsuit due to Defendant’s Failure to issue payment of comprehensive benefits following the submission of an invoice seeking payment for glass repairs performed on Defendant insured’s motor vehicle.
2. Defendant argued four points of contention as the basis for why Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a cause of action:
a. Plaintiff’s failure to attach a copy of the Contract to the Complaint;
b. Plaintiff’s failure to specifically identify the terms of the contract Plaintiff believes were breached;
c. Plaintiff’s failure to plead facts, which if taken as true, would prove a material breach as far as the time frame of the payment and;
d. Plaintiff’s failure to plead facts, if taken as true, would provide a material breach as to the amount of the payment made by Defendant under the Contract.
3. The court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint has sufficiently plead facts to withstand Defendant’s Motion.
4. Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss or in the alternative Motion For More Definite Statement is hereby denied.
5. Defendant shall have twenty days from the date of this order to file their Answer.
