Miranda Construction Development, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.
763 F. Supp. 2d 1336
S.D. Fla.2010Background
- Miranda filed a declaratory judgment action against Mid-Continent seeking defense/indemnity for a Barron suit alleging defective construction.
- Mid-Continent denied coverage and filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief and a third-party action against the Barrons.
- Barrons allege Miranda’s defective construction caused collapse and damage to the home to various components; damages unspecified.
- Mid-Continent argues the Barrons’ complaint shows only damage to Miranda’s work, exempt under the policy exclusion.
- Miranda argues the Barrons’ allegations are broad enough to trigger potential coverage and that the subcontractor exception and policy version are misapplied.
- The court grants Mid-Continent summary judgment, finding no duty to defend or indemnify Miranda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mid-Continent has a duty to defend Miranda | Miranda: broad allegations bring within coverage | Mid-Continent: allegations fall under exclusion for damages to your work | No duty to defend |
| Whether the 'your work' exclusion applies | Miranda: exception negates exclusion; subcontractor argument | Mid-Continent: no subcontractor involvement; exclusion applies | Exclusion applicable; no duty to defend or indemnify |
| Whether the 2004-05 policy or 2006-07 policy governs | Miranda: 2004-05 policy with subcontractor exception | Mid-Continent: 2006-07 policy controls; no subcontractor involvement | Policy version irrelevant; no coverage under the facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Lime Tree Village Cmty. Club Ass'n v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 1402 (11th Cir. 1993) (duty to defend construed broadly; exclusion enforced when clear)
- WPC Industrial Contractors, Ltd. v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Co., 720 F.Supp.2d 1377 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (duty to defend determined by underlying complaint allegations)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (burden of production on movant for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact required for denial of SJ)
- Northland Cas. Co. v. HBE Corp., 160 F.Supp.2d 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2001) (choice-of-law and interpretation of insurance contracts in declaratory actions)
- Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Brown, 787 F.Supp.2d 1424 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (insurance contract interpretation; duty to defend depends on policy language)