Leon v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co., Case No: 2:18-cv-673-FtM-38CM

• Decision Date: 30 October 2018
• Docket Number: Case No: 2:18-cv-673-FtM-38CM
• Parties: ANAHIDIA LEON, Plaintiff, v. INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida

ANAHIDIA LEON, Plaintiff,
v.
INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No: 2:18-cv-673-FtM-38CM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

October 30, 2018

OPINION AND ORDER¹

Before the Court is Defendant Integon National Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 3). Plaintiff Anahidia Leon has not responded, and the time to do so has expired. This matter is ripe for review.

This is an insurance-coverage case. Leon is the owner of real property in Naples, Florida, subject to a mortgage held by Regions Bank. The property is insured by Integon under Residential Property Hazard Insurance Policy No. 70050002. After the property was damaged by Hurricane Irma in September 2017, Leon notified Integon of the damage, but Integon has not paid for the requested repairs and replacements. Leon sued Integon in Florida state court, and Integon removed the case to this Court. Integon now

Page 2

moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to attach a copy of the Policy and for lack of standing.

When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, courts must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Gagliardi v. City of Boca Raton, 197 F. Supp. 3d 1359, 1364-65 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)). While normally limited to the four corners of the complaint, courts may consider documents outside the pleadings if they are central to the claim and their authenticity is undisputed. Stern v. Bank of America Corp., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (citing Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2005)). Here, Leon did not attach the Policy to her Complaint, but Integon submitted it with the Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1-3). Because the Policy is central to Leon's claim, she identified it by policy number in her Complaint, and she has not disputed its authenticity, the Court has considered the terms of the Policy.

I. Failure to Attach a Copy of the Policy to the Complaint

Integon argues that Leon's failure to attach a copy of the Policy to the Complaint warrants dismissal. While it is true that Florida rules require parties to attach or incorporate certain documents when filing pleadings, federal rules do not. Yencarelli v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. 8:17-CV-2029-T-36AEP, 2017 WL 6559999, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2017). Integon foreclosed this line of attack when it removed the case to...