872 F.3d 1161
11th Cir.2017Background
- Easdon Rhodes, an LLC, had a Southern-Owners commercial general liability policy that excluded autos but added a Hired Auto and Non-Owned Auto Liability Endorsement with $1,000,000 limits and an exclusion: coverage applies only "if you do not have any other insurance available to you which affords the same or similar coverage."
- On April 1, 2011, Joshua Rhodes (an Easdon Rhodes member) drove a Chevrolet Silverado and collided with David Moore’s motorcycle; Moore sued Joshua and later amended to add Easdon Rhodes.
- The Silverado was covered by a personal Nationwide auto policy that paid its $25,000 limits for Moore’s claim.
- Southern-Owners defended under a reservation of rights and sued for declaratory judgment in federal court seeking to be absolved of any duty to defend or indemnify under the Endorsement.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Southern-Owners, concluding the Silverado did not qualify under the Endorsement and, in any event, the Nationwide policy provided "similar coverage" so the exclusion applied; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Silverado qualified as a "hired or non-owned auto" under the Endorsement | Moore/Easdon: vehicle should qualify and thus trigger coverage | Southern-Owners: Silverado did not fit the policy's definition (and district court agreed) | Court affirmed that the vehicle did not qualify (and did not need to resolve other scope arguments) |
| Whether "any other insurance ... which affords the same or similar coverage" excludes Southern-Owners' duty when another policy existed and paid | Moore: phrase ambiguous — "similar" could mean similarity of overall policy scope, so exclusion should be construed for coverage | Southern-Owners: "similar coverage" means another policy that covers the same risk/liability (bodily injury/property damage), so exclusion applies | Held: unambiguous — "coverage" refers to inclusion of a specific risk; Nationwide policy covered the same risks, so exclusion applies and defeats duty to defend/indemnify |
| Whether differences in policy limits defeat a finding of "similar" coverage | Moore: different limits (25k vs 1,000,000) show coverages not similar | Southern-Owners: limits are distinct from coverage type; similarity concerns the risk covered, not amount | Held: limits do not defeat similarity; amount is separate from whether a risk is covered |
| Whether policy language must be construed against insurer as ambiguous to favor insured | Moore: ambiguous terms must be read in insured's favor | Southern-Owners: language has a single reasonable meaning | Held: no genuine ambiguity after ordinary construction; court will not create ambiguity by strained interpretation; exclusion enforced as written |
Key Cases Cited
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (policy terms given ordinary meaning; construe as whole)
- Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2002) (interpret policy terms in ordinary sense consistent with parties' intent)
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005) (insurance policy must actually be ambiguous to invoke contra proferentem)
- Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2003) (complexity does not equal ambiguity)
- Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2010) (use ordinary references to ascertain words' accepted meaning)
- McGow v. McCurry, 412 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying similar "same or similar coverage" exclusion without discussing ambiguity)