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.

In other words, they are such damages as do not follow by implication of law merely upon proof of the breach. On the other hand, general damages are those which the law presumes actually and necessarily result from the alleged breach or wrong. Augustine v. S. Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956). . . .

The measure or amount of damages is not at issue at this point in the proceedings. See Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So.2d 129, 132 (Fla. 1972) ("It is well established in Florida that where the allegations of a complaint show the invasion of a legal right, the plaintiff on the basis thereof may recover at least nominal damages, and a motion to dismiss should be overruled.") (citing Augustine v. S. Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956)); Williams v. Bay Hosp., Inc., 471 So.2d 626, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (holding that the remedy to avoid claims for impermissible elements of damage is a motion to strike the damage claim, or an objection at trial to the damage claim, but not dismissal of the complaint); Williams v. Legree, 206 So.2d 13, 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) ("[A] complaint which sufficiently states a cause of action is not rendered vulnerable to a motion to dismiss by its allegation of an improper element of damages."). Section 215.422, Florida Statutes, which governs the processing of state warrants, vouchers and invoices, has no bearing at this juncture, if at all.

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.

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 appeal is brought from both the order dismissing Counts III and IV, see Allen v. Leybourne, 190 So.2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and from the order on summary judgment. Our examination of the complaint shows no pleading deficiency as to Count III. The only determination a court undertakes in considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is whether, upon examination of the four corners of the complaint, the allegations are sufficient to sustain a claim for relief. Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1956); Bricker v. Kay, 446 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). We affirm the summary judgment and order of dismissal as to Counts I, II, and IV. We reverse the order of dismissal as to Counts III and V, and remand for further proceedings.

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).

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.