Interline Brands, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Insurance Company
749 F.3d 962
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Interline purchased a series of CGL policies from Chartis with a broad exclusion for violations of statutes relating to sending material or information.
- Interline was sued during the policy period for violating the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227) through junk faxes.
- Interline notified Chartis and sought defense and indemnity; Chartis denied coverage under the Exclusion.
- Interline sued Chartis for breach of contract; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings in Chartis’s favor.
- This is a diversity case applying Florida law; court affirms the district court’s judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Exclusion ambiguous under Florida law? | Interline argues the Exclusion is ambiguous. | Chartis argues the Exclusion is not ambiguous. | Not ambiguous. |
| Is the Exclusion void for public policy? | Interline contends the Exclusion defeats coverage and is contrary to policy. | Chartis contends the Exclusion is a normal, valid exclusion. | Not void for public policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005) (ambiguous provisions resolved against the insurer)
- Gen. Star Indem. Co. v. W. Fla. Vill. Inn, Inc., 874 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (not ambiguous merely because interpretation requires analysis)
- Inter-Ocean Cas. Co. v. Hunt, 189 So. 240 (Fla. 1939) (absurdity standard for interpreting insurance contracts)
- Purrelli v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 698 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (exclusions can be legitimate and not render coverage illusory)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (choice of law governs interpretation in diversity)