MT. Hawley Insurance Company v. Miami River Port Terminal, LLC, 713 F. App'x 951

Background

Raul and Lucrecia Gonzalez owned policies issued by Mt. Hawley (plaintiff) and excess coverage by North River (plaintiff-intervenor); their newly formed company, Miami River Port Terminal, LLC (Defendant), was omitted as a Named Insured but its address was listed as a covered location.
In September 2013 a dockworker (Augustave) was severely injured while unloading at the terminal; he sued both Miami River Port Terminal and tenant P&L Cargo Services for negligence (separate counts against each).
The underlying complaints alleged both a joint venture between Defendant and P&L and also alleged that Defendant, as owner, had duties to invitees and may have negligently maintained the premises.
Mt. Hawley initially denied coverage, then defended under a reservation of rights, and later filed a declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify due to the joint-venture allegations and because Defendant was not a Named Insured.
The district court granted summary judgment for Mt. Hawley and North River, holding the joint-venture allegations placed the suit outside coverage; it also denied Defendant’s counterclaims (including reformation) and found Defendant was not a Named Insured.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit concluded the district court erred in its joint-venture analysis (because the complaint also alleged premises-liability grounds independent of the joint venture) but affirmed on the alternative ground that Defendant is not a Named Insured and thus not entitled to coverage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joint-venture allegations in the underlying complaint eliminate duty to defend	Joint-venture allegations show claims arise from an uninsured joint venture and are excluded	Complaint also alleges independent premises-liability against Defendant (owner), which could trigger coverage	Court: District court erred — joint-venture allegations did not conclusively eliminate coverage because an owner-based negligence theory existed
Whether Defendant is a Named Insured under the policy	Policy’s Declarations and schedule do not name Defendant as a Named Insured; locations ≠ named insureds	The schedule (and ‘‘See Schedule’’ language) and location listing of Miami River Port Terminal show Defendant is covered	Court: Defendant is not a Named Insured; schedule separately lists named insureds and locations, so no coverage
Whether ambiguity in the policy requires construing coverage for Defendant	No ambiguity; plain text distinguishes Named Insureds and Locations	Listing location without street address creates ambiguity in favor of Defendant	Court: No actual ambiguity; interpreting schedule to conflate locations and named insureds would render policy distinctions meaningless
Whether reformation of the policy is warranted to add Defendant as a Named Insured	Policy should stand as written; reformation not demonstrated	Policy was issued with agent error; reformation should add Defendant retroactively	Court: Reformation claim failed in district court and was not successfully appealed; Defendant remains not a Named Insured

Key Cases Cited

Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
EmbroidMe.com, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 845 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir.) (choice-of-law and insurer duty-to-defend principles)
Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 908 So. 2d 435 (Fla.) (duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint)
Lime Tree Vill. Cmty. Club Ass'n, Inc. v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 1402 (11th Cir.) (focus on alleged grounds for liability)
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Am. Pride Bldg. Co., LLC, 601 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir.) (insurer must defend when uncertain whether coverage exists)
Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla.) (premises-owners owe duty to invitees)
Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla.) (discussed and distinguished regarding joint-venture allegations)
Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir.) (appellate affirmance may rest on any ground in the record)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29 (Fla.) (policy interpretation principles)
Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla.) (ambiguities construed in favor of coverage when actually ambiguous)