119 F.4th 1296
11th Cir.2024Background
- The dispute is between two insurance companies, Gemini and Zurich, over their respective contributions to a $2 million settlement for a wrongful death claim involving a trucking accident.
- FSR Trucking was insured by Zurich (for $1 million via a leased trailer) and by Gemini (for $3 million). Ryder’s insurer contributed $1 million to the overall $3 million settlement; only the $2 million paid by Gemini is at issue here.
- Both insurers agree they owe a share of the $2 million, but dispute the method of allocation based on their policies’ "other insurance" clauses.
- Gemini sued Zurich seeking a declaratory judgment that Zurich owed $1 million (half), while Zurich argued for a pro rata share ($500,000 for Zurich).
- The district court found for Zurich on the primary legal issue but awarded Gemini prejudgment interest; both parties appealed—that decision now being reviewed de novo by the Eleventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of Settlement | Both owe $1M (50/50 split) | Owe pro rata: Zurich $500K, Gemini $1.5M | Gemini’s clause is "excess and non-contributory"; Zurich owes $1M |
| Prevailing Party Status | Entitled to judgment & interest | Gemini is not prevailing party post-tender | Moot; Gemini is prevailing and entitled to interest |
| Prejudgment Interest | Interest accrues to payment | Should stop accruing at tender/acknowledgment | Interest accrues until unconditional payment (Mar 4, 2022) |
| Application of FL Law to "Other Insurance" Clauses | Pure excess language trumps pro rata | Both excess, so pro rata controls | Applied case law (Ferris, Beane), giving effect to "no contribution" language |
Key Cases Cited
- Sentry Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (framework for interpreting competing "other insurance" clauses)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 157 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (explains types of "other insurance" clauses)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 478 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (mutually repugnant excess clauses resolved pro rata)
- Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Ferris, 312 So. 3d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (pure excess vs pro rata clause priority)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Beane, 385 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) ("shall not contribute" language creates true excess policy)
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985) (prevailing party generally entitled to prejudgment interest)