Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company and Texas Insurance Company v. Eric Small

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denies Eric Small’s motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action brought by Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company and Texas Insurance Company. The insurers seek a declaration that Small’s marine insurance policy is void and does not cover Hurricane Milton damage because he allegedly breached survey-compliance, fire-suppression, and windstorm warranties and violated the maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei. The court holds that admiralty jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue are adequately established and that the claims satisfy the applicable pleading standards.

Holdings

1. A dispute concerning a marine insurance contract falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction because marine insurance contracts are maritime contracts governed by maritime law.
2. The insurers established a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction, and Small failed to rebut it with evidence or a meritorious argument.
3. Venue was proper because the policy's forum-selection clause permitted litigation in the federal district where Small's insurance agent resided, and Small did not challenge the clause's validity.
4. The court would entertain the declaratory judgment action because the insurers alleged a redressable controversy concerning coverage, the fact-intensive nature of the dispute did not preclude declaratory relief, and no parallel state proceeding or concrete jury-trial issue justified abstention.
5. The insurers adequately pleaded claims for breach of the Survey Compliance, Fire Suppression, and Windstorm Warranties and sufficiently alleged future injury for declaratory relief.
6. The complaint satisfied both the applicable plausibility and particularity requirements because it specified what Small warranted or represented, when and how he did so, and why the insurers believed the warranties or representations were breached.
7. The insurers adequately pleaded a claim for breach of the maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei.
8. The court would not dismiss the uberrimae fidei claim based on the asserted unclean-hands-like defense or alleged duplicativeness at the pleading stage.
9. The insurers adequately pleaded their claim that Small breached the policy condition voiding the contract for material nondisclosure or misrepresentation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded federal admiralty jurisdiction over a dispute concerning a marine insurance contract.
2. Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Small.
3. Whether venue was proper under the policy's forum-selection clause.
4. Whether the court should decline to entertain the declaratory judgment action because the dispute was fact-intensive, would not resolve the controversy, or could affect a jury-trial right.
5. Whether the insurers adequately pleaded claims for breach of express marine-insurance warranties under Rules 8(a)(2), 9(b), and 12(b)(6), including whether they adequately alleged future injury.
6. Whether the insurers adequately pleaded a claim for breach of the maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei.
7. Whether the uberrimae fidei claim was barred by an affirmative defense or was duplicative of the warranty claims.
8. Whether the insurers adequately pleaded their claim based on the policy condition voiding coverage for material nondisclosure or misrepresentation.

Disposition

other