[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff and Defendant are parties to a written contract:
2. The contract is ambiguous about the permissibility or scope of the conduct in question;
3. Defendant, through a conscious and deliberate act, fails or refuses to discharge contractual responsibilities that unfairly frustrates the contract’s purpose and disappoints the Plaintiff’s expectations;
4. Defendant’s breach deprives the Plaintiff of the contract’s benefits; and
5. Plaintiff suffers damages.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff and Defendant are parties to a written contract:
2. The contract is ambiguous about the permissibility or scope of the conduct in question;
3. Defendant, through a conscious and deliberate act, fails or refuses to discharge contractual responsibilities that unfairly frustrates the contract’s purpose and disappoints the Plaintiff’s expectations;
4. Defendant’s breach deprives the Plaintiff of the contract’s benefits; and
5. Plaintiff suffers damages.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

First District: Holmes v. Florida A&M Univ. by and through Bd. of Trustees, 260 So.3d 400, 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Ahearn v. Mayo Clinic, 180 So.3d 165, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

Second District: JF & LN, LLC v. Royal Oldsmobile-GMC Trucks Co., 292 So.3d 500, 507-08 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Tropic Enters., Inc., 966 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Third District: Diageo Dominicana, S.R.L. v. United Brands, S.A., 314 So. 3d 295, 299 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Flagship Resort Dev. Corp. v. Interval Intern., Inc., 28 So.3d 915, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Fourth District: Share v. Broken Sound Club, Inc., 312 So. 3d 962, 969 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Overseas Inv. Group v. Wall Street Electronica, Inc., 181 So.3d 1288, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Fifth District: Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Rural/Metro Corp. of Florida, 994 So.2d 1202, 1207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of Louisiana, 809 Fed.App’x 574, 582-83 (11th Cir. 2020); Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1329 (11th Cir. 2012).

Southern District: Scanz Techs., Inc. v. JewMon Enterprises, LLC, No. 20-22957-CIV, 2021 WL 65466, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2021); Sardinas v. Miami Veterinary Specialists, P.A., No. 1:20-CV-22987, 2020 WL 7241364, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 8, 2020).

Middle District: Allen v. Reliaquest, LLC, No. 8:23-CV-0806-KKM-AEP, 2025 WL 1148679, at *4 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2025); Bacarella v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2021 WL 5302254, *5-6 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2021); Jpmorgan Chase Bank v. Synergy Pharmacy Servs., Inc., No. 8:18-CV-1253-VMC-SPF, 2021 WL 2351179, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2021); Lake v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 8:20-CV-3010-VMC-TGW, 2021 WL 1164828, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2021).

Northern District: Penton v. Centennial Bank, No. 4:18-cv-00450-AW-CAS, 2019 WL 6769661, at *4 (N.D. Fla. November 22, 2019); Edwards v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 5:15cv148–MW/GRJ, 2015 WL 6777463 at *6 (N.D. Fla. October 22, 2015); Langhorne v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1277 (N.D. Fla. 2006).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) “There are two limitations on such claims: (1) where application of the covenant would contravene the express terms of the agreement; and (2) where there is no accompanying action for breach of an express term of the agreement.” See JF & LN, LLC v. Royal Oldsmobile-GMC Trucks Co., 292 So.3d 500, 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Oakwood Ins. Co. v. North American Risk Services, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-437-Orl-31LRH, 2019 WL 2211110 at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2019) (citing QBA Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apartments Ass’n, Inc., 94 So.3d 541, 548 (Fla. 2012)) (emphasis added).

(4) The covenant does not apply where the contract’s express terms define the permissibility of the conduct. Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, (M.D. Fla. 2000); Aldora Aluminum & Glass Products, Inc. v. Poma Glass & Specialty Windows, Inc., No. 3:14–cv–1402–J–34JBT, 2015 WL 4092781, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 6, 2015) (holding that “the covenant applies only when the propriety of the conduct is not resolved by the terms of the contract”).

(5) Florida law does not “recognize a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing by an insured against its insurer based on the insurer’s failure to investigate and assess the insured’s claim within a reasonable period of time” as “such first-party claims are actually statutory bad-faith claims that must be brought under section 624.155 of the Florida Statutes.” QBE Ins. Corp. v. Chalfonte Condo. Apart. Assoc., 94 So.3d 541, 549 (Fla. 2012)(emphasis added); Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co. v. Menada, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-21465-UU, 2017 WL 5956882, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2017).

(6) Action not available in cases based on breach of at-will employment contract. Kelly v. Gill, 544 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Benitez v. Neilsen Media Research, Inc., No. 804CV1928T30TBM, 2005 WL 1224926, at *1 (M.D. Fla. March 17, 2005).

(7) Claim is subject to dismissal as redundant where the conduct at issue is duplicative of breach of contract claim. Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1311, (M.D. Fla. 2000); Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Imperial Holdings Inc., No. 13–80385–Civ–Brannon, 2016 WL 10565034, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2016).

[/MM_Access_Decision]