The contention that the claim for loss of use should not have been stricken has merit. Grounds for the ruling were not stated in the order. If the only reason for striking this claim for special damages was because sufficient facts to support the claim were not alleged, defendants' proper remedy was a motion for more definite statement pursuant to Rule 1.11(e), F.R.C.P. Augustine v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., Fla. 1956, 91 So.2d 320. If, however, the trial court's basis for striking the claim for damages was the rule contended for by defendants that damages for loss of use are not recoverable where total destruction of the article or machine is claimed, then in our opinion the trial judge erred. The authorities are divided on this proposition, and we find no controlling Florida case.

General damages are said to encompass all the damages which naturally and necessarily result from a legal wrong done. Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956). Such damages follow by implication of law upon proof of a wrong.

This requirement has been construed by the Florida courts to mean that a claim for special damages is sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to strike if it "notif[ies] the defendant of the nature of the special damages claimed." Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956). See also, Arcade Steam Laundry v. Bass, 159 So.2d 915 (2d D.C.A. 1964).

Marquette Cement v. Louisville Nashville R.R. Co., 281 F. Supp. at 947. See also Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Company, 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956). In other words, "general damages are awarded only if injury were foreseeable to a reasonable man and . . . special damages are awarded only if actual notice were given to the carrier of the possibility of injury. Damage is foreseeable by the carrier if it is the proximate and usual consequence of the carrier's action."

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 345 So.2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Cruz v. Union Gen. Ins., 586 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Monsanto Co. v. Fuqua, 280 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Walden. Since the Plaintiff did not incur any medical expenses which the Defendant did not reimburse, and any damages the Plaintiff might have sustained as a result of the alleged anticipatory breach are too speculative to sustain an action for breach of contract, this Court declines the opportunity to affirm the dismissal but remand with instructions to allow the Plaintiff to amend her complaint. Augusting v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1956) distinguishing Byers v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 73 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1954) (dismissal appropriate where on the face of the complaint damages are too speculative to be recoverable). The Court understands the Appellant's frustration at the inability to obtain relief for the insurer's alleged anticipatory breach.

This requirement has been construed by the Florida courts to mean that a claim for special damages is sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to strike if it notifies the defendant of the nature of the special damages claimed." Bazal v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc., 442 F. Supp. at 1100 (citing in part Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956)). The Bazal plaintiff alleged that he sought recovery for "emotional distress suffered." Id.

General damages, on the other hand, are damages that the law presumes actually and necessarily result from the alleged wrong or breach. See Augustine v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla.1956).The purpose of the special damages rule is to prevent surprise at trial.