Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company v. L. Pellinen Construction, Inc., 21-10256

Background

In December 2016 a framing worker, Esdras Ambrocio, fell while working on roof trusses and sued multiple construction-related entities after workers’ compensation paid his medical/life-care expenses.
L. Pellinen Construction was insured under a commercial general liability policy issued by Endurance; the policy included an Additional Insured Endorsement for entities required by written contract to be named as insureds.
Mattamy Orlando, LLC and Mattamy Florida, LLC (owner/developer and affiliate) tendered defense under the policy as additional insureds based on a written agreement with Pellinen; Endurance refused, citing three exclusions (Workers’ Compensation, Employer’s Liability, Multi‑Unit Construction Project).
Endurance filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to avoid any duty to defend/indemnify Pellinen and the Mattamy entities; the district court granted summary judgment to the Mattamy defendants (and denied Endurance’s motion as to them), finding they were additional insureds and the exclusions did not apply.
Endurance appealed; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed contract interpretation and summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of the Mattamy defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of DJ action — could the district court decide Mattamys’ insured status?	Endurance: insured-status determination was beyond the complaint’s scope.	Mattamy: Endurance named them and both parties litigated the issue in pleadings and cross-motions.	Court: Issue was squarely before district court; it properly decided insured status.
Applicability of Additional Insured Endorsement	Endurance: endorsement covers only supervision-related liability not implicated; contract’s effective date is ambiguous.	Mattamy: complaint alleges involvement/supervision and affidavits/certificate show contract in effect and additional-insured status.	Court: Complaint allegations could reasonably trigger coverage for work/supervision; affidavits established contract in effect; endorsement applies.
Workers’ Compensation / Employer’s Liability exclusions (statutory‑employee issue)	Endurance: Mattamy acted as a contractor/statutory employer so exclusions bar coverage.	Mattamy: they were property owner/developer, not a contractor with a primary contractual obligation to a third party.	Court: No evidence Mattamy had the statutory "contractor" role (primary contractual obligation and subletting); exclusions do not apply.
Multi‑Unit Construction Project exclusion	Endurance: the subdivision was a "housing development" exceeding 10 units, so exclusion applies.	Mattamy: each house was built on separate parcels; "single contiguous parcel" is ambiguous, favoring insured.	Court: Reasonable ambiguity existed; under Florida law resolve for insured — exclusion does not apply.

Key Cases Cited

Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 701 F.3d 896 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing cross‑motions for summary judgment)
Tobin v. Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 398 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of insurance‑policy interpretation)
Psychiatric Assocs. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 647 So. 2d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (complaint allegations that could fall within coverage trigger duty to defend)
Lime Tree Vill. Cmty. Club Ass’n, Inc. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 1402 (11th Cir. 1993) (insurer’s duty to defend when complaint fairly alleges covered claims)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (no genuine issue if record could not lead a rational trier to find for nonmoving party)
Cadillac Fairview of Fla., Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So. 2d 417 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) (contractors who sublet become statutory employers under Fla. Workers’ Comp. Act)
Pullam v. Hercules Inc., 711 So. 2d 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (definition of "contractor" for statutory‑employer analysis)
Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1954) (contractor must have primary contractual obligation to third party to be statutory employer)
Cuero v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 849 So. 2d 326 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (owner not automatically a contractor under the statute)
Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001) (elements and limits of judicial estoppel)
Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc., 889 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2004) (ambiguities in insurance policies construed in favor of insured)
Heredia v. John Beach & Assocs., Inc., 278 So. 3d 194 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) (distinguishing owner/developer activity from statutory‑employer status)
Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1973) (owner without primary contractual obligation not entitled to statutory‑employer immunity)
Salazar‑Abreu v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc., 277 So. 3d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) (judicial‑estoppel requirements)
Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 657 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2011) (choice‑of‑law principles for insurance coverage)
Strochak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 717 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1998) (Florida law on insurance coverage application)