Geico Marine Insurance Company v. Baron
6:19-cv-00159
| M.D. Fla. | Aug 1, 2019Background
- Defendant Baron was injured (lost an arm) while snorkeling near his anchored boat after being struck by an uninsured boater.
- Baron had purchased uninsured boater coverage from GEICO and sought benefits after the incident.
- GEICO contends the policy’s uninsured-boater definition requires a collision between two boats (i.e., the insured’s boat must collide with another boat), so Baron's claim (struck while in the water) is not covered.
- Baron argues he reasonably believed, based on an online application and a post-application phone call with a GEICO agent, that he would be covered even without a boat-to-boat collision; he alleges negligent omissions and fraudulent inducement.
- GEICO filed for declaratory judgment and moved for judgment on the pleadings; Baron counterclaimed for breach/claim for uninsured boater benefits and fraudulent inducement.
- The Court treated policy interpretation under Florida law, accepted pleadings facts as true for the Rule 12(c) standard, and resolved whether the policy language or pre-contractual statements entitled Baron to coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Policy covers injuries to an insured not on the insured boat struck by an uninsured boater | GEICO: coverage only applies when a boater’s boat collides with another boat (no coverage for a person struck while in water) | Baron: he reasonably believed (from online application and agent call) uninsured-boater coverage would apply even absent a boat-vs-boat collision | Court: Policy unambiguously excludes Baron's scenario; GEICO entitled to judgment; declaratory judgment for GEICO |
| Whether the online application conflicts with or alters the policy such that coverage applies | GEICO: application does not alter or conflict with the later-written policy | Baron: alleges omission/misleading information in the application caused his belief in coverage | Court: application does not conflict with or make policy ambiguous; no basis to override written policy |
| Whether Baron pled fraudulent inducement based on pre-contract statements/omissions | GEICO: oral statements or omissions cannot override a subsequent written policy; no actionable misrepresentation alleged | Baron: relied on application and phone representations; alleges omission of material terms | Court: Fraud in the inducement not sufficiently pleaded—no specific misrepresentation alleged and reliance on oral statements that contradict a written contract is unjustified; Count III dismissed (without prejudice) |
| Whether Counts I and II (breach/claim for benefits) survive | GEICO: policy bars coverage, so breach/benefit claims fail as a matter of law | Baron: seeks benefits under uninsured-boater provision | Court: Counts I and II dismissed with prejudice (policy bars recovery) |
Key Cases Cited
- Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (motion on the pleadings standard)
- Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (pleadings must be taken as true for judgment-on-pleadings review)
- Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985) (elements of actionable misrepresentation/fraud in inducement)
- PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Const., N.V., 598 F.3d 802 (11th Cir.) (fraud claim pleading standards)
- Hill v. State Farm Ins. Co., 181 F. Supp. 3d 980 (M.D. Fla.) (a party is not justified in relying on oral representations that conflict with a later written contract)