412 F. App'x 252
11th Cir.2011Background
- Stonebridge Gardens hired Rolyn to repair buildings after a 2005 hurricane; Precision was the roofing subcontractor.
- Water intrusion damaged Building 2800 interior during a heavy rain; Rolyn repaired interiors of all units at a cost exceeding $1,300,000.
- Rolyn sued Precision and sought defense/indemnity from Crum & Forster and Admiral under their insurance policies.
- District court granted summary judgment to the insurers, finding no coverage under either policy.
- Rolyn appealed asserting four issues regarding policy exclusions and coverage; the court reviews de novo.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court’s judgment as to both insurers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary-payment provision applicability | Rolyn asserts coverage despite voluntary payments. | Crum & Forster argues policy requires insurer consent for voluntary payments. | Voluntary-payment provision precludes recovery. |
| Asbestos and mold exclusions in Crum & Forster | Exclusions did not apply to Rolyn's costs. | Exclusions bar coverage for those damages. | Exclusions for asbestos/mold also preclude coverage (along with voluntary-payment bar). |
| Rolyn as an additional insured under Admiral | Rolyn sought coverage as an additional insured. | Rolyn is not an additional insured under the policy terms. | Rolyn not an additional insured; insurer defenses prevail (court did not need to reach other issues). |
| Roofing Operations Exclusion under Admiral | Exclusion should not bar coverage for the claim here. | Roofing Operations Exclusion precludes coverage for damage during roofing. | Roofing Operations Exclusion precludes Admiral coverage; district court affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2007) (insurance contracts interpreted by plain meaning, ambiguities against insurer)
- Jamestown Builders, Inc. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (insurer defenses and consent requirements for settlements)
- American Reliance Ins. Co. v. Perez, 712 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (insurer consent required for voluntary settlements)
- Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. American Pride Bldg. Co., LLC, 601 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir. 2010) (breach and prejudice considerations under policy terms)
- Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 So.2d 871 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (avoid rendering contract terms meaningless)
- Davis v. Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc., 253 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2001) (diversity governed by state law for insurance contracts)