Summary
This Report and Recommendation addresses Defendants’ motion to dismiss claims arising from the alleged undisclosed inclusion of travel assistance service fees in travel protection plans. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of the fraud and good-faith-and-fair-dealing claims, relying in part on FUITPA-related precedent, Florida insurance statutes, and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Whiteman. The recommendation also finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive relief and recommends denial of the attorney’s-fee request.
Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Decision date
February 25, 2026
Docket number
No. 25-60256-CIV-SMITH/HUNT
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether the common-law fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation claim is barred because it is based on conduct governed by the Florida Unfair Insurance Trade Practices Act.
- Whether the alleged website disclosures, hyperlinks, and policy documents precluded the fraud claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
- Whether plaintiff stated a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing by alleging that the plan price included undisclosed charges for travel assistance services.
- Whether plaintiff had standing to seek prospective injunctive relief based on an alleged intention to purchase travel insurance again.
- Whether plaintiff adequately alleged a basis for recovering attorney's fees.
Holdings
- A plaintiff may not evade the Florida legislature's decision to withhold a statutory cause of action for specified FUITPA violations by asserting common-law claims based on those same alleged violations.
- The adequacy and clarity of the offer-box disclosures, hyperlinks, and incorporated policy documents presented a fact-intensive inquiry that should not be resolved on the motion to dismiss.
- Plaintiff failed to state a claim because he alleged that he was charged the quoted price for protection plans that provided the insurance and assistance services described in the plans; the contract did not require defendants to allocate or disclose how the quoted price was divided.
- Plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because his allegation that he would purchase travel insurance again did not establish a real and immediate threat of future injury or an imminent intent to repurchase.
- The request for attorney's fees should be denied because plaintiff alleged no basis for recovering fees and all substantive claims should be dismissed.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…