24-13700
11th Cir.Sep 2, 2025Background
- Batten Farms held a Cypress insurance policy listing scheduled autos and a Temporary Substitute Autos provision covering “[a]ny ‘auto’ you do not own” used as a temporary substitute for a covered auto you own that is out of service.
- On May 10, 2020, Jesse Batten’s personally owned 2002 Freightliner (the “Deer Vehicle”) was totaled; Cypress underwriter Jessica Parker emailed Batten Farms’ agent (May 28 and June 5) asking whether the insured would keep the unit and whether any temporary substitutes were used—she did not reference the ownership clause.
- Cypress later agreed to remove the Deer Vehicle from the policy effective May 11, refunded a return premium, and purchased salvage (dates not clearly established in the record).
- On August 11, 2020, a Batten Farms employee was driving an unlisted truck (the “Accident Vehicle”) and caused a fatal collision; Cypress denied coverage on November 2, 2020, because the involved truck was not scheduled and was not a temporary substitute under the Policy.
- Batten Farms (and Jesse Batten) argued Cypress waived the Policy’s ownership requirement by (a) Parker’s May/June emails that did not mention ownership and (b) continuing to accept premiums / handling salvage; Cypress sued for declaratory relief and the district court granted summary judgment for Cypress.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding Appellants failed to show a clear and unmistakable, intentional relinquishment of Cypress’s known right to enforce the ownership clause, and the record lacks evidence that Cypress knew the Deer Vehicle was owned by Jesse Batten at the time of the communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cypress waived the Policy’s ownership requirement by Parker’s May/June emails asking about temporary substitutes but not citing the ownership clause | Parker’s emails invited use of temporary substitutes and omitted ownership limitation, so Cypress intentionally or effectively waived that clause | Emails do not show Cypress knew the Deer Vehicle was personally owned; silence about a contract term does not establish clear and unmistakable waiver | No waiver: emails do not prove intentional relinquishment or knowledge required to waive a coverage-limiting clause |
| Whether Cypress waived the ownership clause by accepting premiums / handling salvage after the Deer Vehicle loss | Cypress accepted premiums/handled salvage post-loss, thereby assuming the risk and waiving the ownership condition (premium-acceptance doctrine) | Barwick/Harvey line requires insurer to know the condition was unsatisfied when accepting premiums; record lacks proof Cypress knew of Jesse’s personal ownership at that time | No waiver: no evidence Cypress knew of the ownership issue when accepting premiums or when dealing with salvage, so premium-acceptance waiver inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Christian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 239 S.E.2d 328 (Ga. 1977) (insurer waives ownership-based defense when it knows vehicles are titled to others and issues policy/collects premium accordingly)
- Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co., 730 S.E.2d 413 (Ga. 2012) (distinguishes post-loss procedural conditions from coverage-defining provisions; scope clauses require clear, unmistakable waiver)
- Barwick v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 324 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. App. 1984) (premium-acceptance can waive a policy change only when insurer knew the condition was not met)
- Ochoa v. Coldwater Creek Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 863 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. App. 2021) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- Vratsinas Constr. Co. v. Triad Drywall, LLC, 739 S.E.2d 493 (Ga. App. 2013) (coverage-defining provisions require clear and unmistakable waiver)
- Gemini Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 119 F.4th 1296 (11th Cir. 2024) (de novo review of summary judgment; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)