Denying Prudential Insurance Company’s motion for declaratory judgment, finding no justiciable controversy or injury in fact sufficient to confer standing under Article III, as required by cases such as Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992), and Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1346–47 (11th Cir. 1999); also denying Prudential’s motion to amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest, concluding that awarding additional damages would result in an inequitable double recovery, citing Catalfumo v. Catalfumo, 704 So. 2d 1095, 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) and Kissimmee Util. Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 1988).
https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-01125-257-6-cv