In 316, Inc. v. Md. Cas. Co., Case No. 3:07cv528-RS-MD (N.D. Fla. May 21, 2008), an insured, whose commercial building had been damaged by Hurricane Ivan, alleged that its insurer acted in bad faith by refusing to pay for the damages. Claiming that the insurer conducted its general business practices in “willful, wanton, malicious, and reckless manners,” the insured requested an award of punitive damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.72, and Florida’s Bad Faith statute, Fla. Stat. § 624.155(5). The insurer sought judgment on the pleadings on the request for punitive damages, as set forth in the insured’s one-count complaint.
A federal trial court judge in the Northern District of Florida considered the motion for judgment and held that the insured’s allegations concerning the insurer’s “general business practices” failed to meet the standard for a punitive damage award. The Court found that the complaint did not contain sufficient factual allegations to establish a “plausible,” as opposed to merely a “possible” or “speculative,” entitlement to punitive damages. Rather, the insured’s allegations were too “conclusory, speculative, formulaic, and/or ambiguous to properly state a claim for punitive damages.”
