Jacob A. Myers, Individually and as Trustee; and Barbara L. Myers v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00928
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

JACOB A. MYERS,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

TRUSTEE; AND BARBARA L.

MYERS,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:25-cv-928-KCD-DNF v.

HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST,

Defendant. /

ORDER Plaintiffs Jacob and Barbara Myers have a homeowners’ insurance policy with Defendant Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest. They now sue because Hartford is cancelling the policy for a “manufactured reason.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 2.) They seek an order “that maintains [their] homeowners policy in full force and effect . . . and enjoins non-renewal[.]” (Id. at 5.)1

1 Plaintiffs’ motion is not paginated, so the Court cites to the page numbers generated by its electronic filing system. To obtain a temporary restraining order, the movant must establish: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable

injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). Preliminary

injunctive relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy, and [the movant] bears the burden of persuasion to clearly establish all four of these prerequisites.” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016).

Plaintiffs’ motion fails on the injury prong. They claim no other insurer offers a “lifetime continuation provision,” which is what they have with Hartford. In other words, they cannot find the same insurance if Hartford cancels the policy. (Doc. 2 at 8.) The Court is not convinced that this injury is

irreparable. Plaintiffs can apparently obtain other insurance. And they fail to explain how the “lifetime continuation provision” leaves them underinsured or exposed to added risk. Plaintiffs can be compensated for the inconvenience of having to renew the policy without a lifetime guarantee and any increased

premiums they face with a new insurer. “An injury is irreparable only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies.” See More Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Dollar Rent a Car, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-457-SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 3203179, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2024). For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED. It is ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 15, 2025.

Kyle C. Dudek | ait United States District Judge