5 F.4th 1235
11th Cir.2021Background:
- Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017) damaged a 31‑story Miami condominium; the Association submitted a $16M proof of loss to Rockhill, which disputed coverage and invoked a 3% hurricane deductible.
- Rockhill’s inspectors concluded the loss was below the 3% deductible; the Association sued for breach of the insurance policy.
- Extensive pretrial discovery fights produced Daubert motions and a discovery sanction striking Rockhill’s expert Brian Warner for missing his deposition deadline; the District Court admitted the Association’s experts (Beers, Pyznar, Torres).
- After a five‑day jury trial, the jury found Rockhill breached the policy and awarded $3,673,303.67 in covered losses but reduced recovery by $359,578 for preexisting damage.
- The Association moved under Rule 50(b) and Rule 59(e) to strike the preexisting damage set‑off and to invalidate the 3% hurricane deductible under Fla. Stat. §627.701(2); the District Court denied relief and entered final judgment.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it upheld the expert‑striking sanction, affirmed denial of Daubert motions as to the Association’s experts, found Rockhill waived its JMOL challenge, and rejected the Association’s statutory argument that the deductible was unenforceable.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by striking Rockhill’s expert (Warner) for discovery noncompliance | Association: strike appropriate because Warner was unavailable for deposition before the deadline and Rockhill failed to comply with scheduling orders | Rockhill: sanction improper; other Rockhill experts were deposed after the deadline | Affirmed — striking Warner was within the court’s docket‑management discretion because Rockhill failed to provide any pre‑deadline deposition date |
| Admissibility of the Association’s experts under Daubert/Rule 702 | Association: experts’ methods and experience reliably supported causation and damages opinions | Rockhill: experts’ methods were unreliable, relied on undisclosed sources, limited inspection time, and Beers lacked a degree | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; challenges went to weight, not admissibility |
| Whether Rockhill preserved its JMOL challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence | Rockhill: evidence (its experts) conclusively showed no hurricane‑caused loss and JMOL should have been granted | Association: evidence was sufficient for the jury, JMOL denied properly | Held against Rockhill — Rule 50(b) motion was not renewed after verdict, so the sufficiency challenge is unpreserved and foreclosed on appeal |
| Association’s challenge to: (a) the jury’s $359,578 preexisting‑damage deduction and (b) enforceability of the 3% hurricane deductible under Fla. Stat. §627.701(2) | (a) Association: no competent evidence tied that dollar amount to preexisting conditions; (b) Association: percentage deductible unenforceable because insurer failed to obtain OIR approval required by §627.701(2) | Rockhill: (a) evidence (Pardee/Davis testimony + Torres estimate + board minutes) supports preexisting‑damage finding; (b) failure to obtain approval does not void the deductible — no statutory penalty and Chalfonte controls | (a) Affirmed — evidence sufficed for jury to allocate $359,578 to preexisting waterproofing/caulking; (b) Affirmed — noncompliance with §627.701(2) does not render the percentage deductible unenforceable absent an express legislative penalty |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702)
- Lind v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 254 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2001) (denial of summary judgment not reviewable after full trial and judgment on the merits)
- Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (district court has broad discretion to enforce scheduling orders and exclude untimely experts)
- Circuitronix, LLC v. Kinwong Elec. (Hong Kong) Co., 993 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2021) (Rule 50(b) renewal requirement to preserve JMOL issue on appeal)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift‑Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (preservation of JMOL issues and Rule 50 jurisprudence)
- Chalfonte Condo. Apt. Ass’n, Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 94 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2012) (Florida Supreme Court: failure to meet certain §627.701 requirements does not automatically void a hurricane‑deductible provision absent an express legislative penalty)