King Cole Condominium Ass'n v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.
21 F. Supp. 3d 1296
| S.D. Fla. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff King Cole Condominium Assoc., Inc. sued Mid-Continent for declaratory relief and breach, claiming it was an additional insured under Mid-Continent's commercial general liability policy issued to contractor Diegon, LLC.
- Underlying tort action: Bonnie Satarsky sued King Cole and Diegon for injuries in a condominium common area under construction, alleging negligence and related claims against King Cole and negligence/breach claims against Diegon.
- Mid-Continent defended Diegon but declined to defend or indemnify King Cole, leading King Cole to sue Mid-Continent; Mid-Continent removed to federal court.
- The Policy’s additional-insured endorsement covers a person for liability “directly attributable to your performance of ongoing operations for that insured” and defines insured contract to require that the named insured caused the bodily injury or property damage.
- The central legal question is whether King Cole is entitled to defense/indemnity as an additional insured for claims of its own negligence or only for vicarious liability based on Diegon’s negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King Cole is an additional insured under the policy | King Cole asserts it is an additional insured and coverage extends to liability arising from the defective condition Diegon created, including King Cole’s liability | Mid-Continent concedes additional-insured status only for liability directly attributable to Diegon’s performance (i.e., vicarious liability), not for King Cole’s independent negligence | Court held the policy limits coverage to liability "directly attributable" to Diegon’s performance; it does not cover King Cole’s own negligence |
| Whether the underlying complaint alleges vicarious liability against King Cole | King Cole argues Satarsky alleged vicarious liability based on Diegon’s negligence, triggering duty to defend/indemnify | Mid-Continent argues the complaint asserts only King Cole’s own negligence and contains no separate vicarious-liability claim | Court held Satarsky did not plead vicarious liability; Florida law requires a separately pleaded vicarious claim and the complaint’s allegations address King Cole’s own negligence |
| Whether Mid-Continent has a duty to defend King Cole | King Cole contends any allegation tied to Diegon’s work triggers defense | Mid-Continent contends duty to defend exists only if the complaint alleges liability directly attributable to Diegon (vicarious liability) | Court held no duty to defend because the underlying suit does not allege vicarious liability against King Cole |
| Interpretation of the additional-insured endorsement | King Cole reads the endorsement broadly to cover liability tied to the defective condition | Mid-Continent reads the endorsement to limit coverage to vicarious liability arising from the named insured’s operations | Court adopted Mid-Continent’s interpretation, consistent with prior district rulings construing identical language |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue standard at summary judgment)
- Allen v. Tyson Foods, 121 F.3d 642 (11th Cir. 1997) (summary judgment evidence view for nonmoving party)
- United Rentals, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (same policy construed to limit additional-insured coverage to vicarious liability)
- Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1990) (Florida requires a separately pleaded count for vicarious liability)
- Gen. Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Bob’s Barricades, Inc., 22 So.3d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (application of Florida pleading rule for vicarious liability)
Outcome: King Cole’s motion for summary judgment denied; Mid-Continent’s motion granted; Mid-Continent owes no duty to defend or indemnify King Cole for the Satarsky suit.