The Peninsula at St. John's Center Condominium Association, Inc. v. Amerisure Insurance Company, 3:22-cv-00792

The Peninsula at St. John’s Center Condominium Association (“the Association”) sought $8.5 million from Amerisure Insurance Companies under a Coblentz agreement, following the settlement of construction defect claims against Auchter, the Project’s original general contractor.
The Project involved construction in Jacksonville, FL from 2005-2008; Auchter defaulted during construction and Skanska was brought in by the Sureties to finish the work.
The Association had previously settled most construction defect claims in state court for approximately $39 million with various parties, then entered a Coblentz agreement with Auchter covering additional alleged damages.
The Coblentz agreement purported to allocate damages across dampproofing, balcony railings, garage screens, hazardous material removal, attorney’s fees, and interest, but did not further apportion these claims as covered or uncovered losses under the Amerisure policies.
Amerisure’s CGL policies for Auchter were only in effect January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2008 and excluded coverage for work not performed by or on behalf of Auchter; work by Skanska was not covered.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment; the Association alleged wrongful refusal to defend, while Amerisure argued lack of coverage, failure to allocate, and deficiencies in the Coblentz agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Is there coverage for all damages under the Amerisure CGL policies?	All damages in Coblentz agreement are covered.	Only damages to non-defective property caused by Auchter’s work are covered; Skanska’s work not covered.	No; Association failed to prove coverage for all claimed amounts, especially those related to Skanska’s post-default work.
Did the Association adequately allocate between covered and uncovered claims?	Allocation in Coblentz agreement sufficient.	No adequate allocation between covered/uncovered claims.	No; lack of allocation precludes recovery under Florida law.
Was there a wrongful refusal to defend by Amerisure?	Prior tenders gave Amerisure sufficient notice.	Association never tendered operative complaint (TAC), so no duty to defend triggered.	No; failure to tender the operative complaint meant no wrongful refusal to defend.
Was the Coblentz agreement reasonable and made in good faith?	Yes, amounts were reasonable given exposures.	Agreement unfairly assigned excessive damages to Auchter, ignored Skanska’s liability, and duplicated recoveries.	No; agreement was unreasonable and not enforceable.

Coblentz v. American Sur. Co. of N.Y., 416 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1969) (establishes requirements for enforcing a Coblentz agreement: coverage, wrongful refusal to defend, and reasonableness/good faith).
Spencer v. Assurance Co. of Am., 39 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 1994) (coverage is a condition precedent to insurer liability, even when insurer fails to defend).
Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co., 673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (defective subcontractor work can constitute an occurrence under CGL policy, but only damage to non-defective property is covered).
Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1990) (specific pleading required for vicarious liability claims).
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2007) (explains distinction between performance bond and insurance policy obligations).