71 F.4th 894
11th Cir.2023Background
- Ocean Reef owned the 92-foot yacht M/Y My Lady insured by Travelers for $2,000,000; the yacht sank during Hurricane Irma (Sept. 2017).
- The policy contained Captain and Crew warranties requiring a full-time, professionally licensed captain and crew; Ocean Reef had intermittent compliance and prior contested claims.
- Travelers filed a declaratory action (initially in W.D.N.Y.) asserting noncoverage for warranty breaches; the case was transferred to S.D. Fla., and this Court previously held Florida law applied on remand.
- Under Florida’s anti-technical statute (Fla. Stat. § 627.409(2)), an insurer may avoid coverage only if the insured’s breach increased the hazard within the insured’s control; Travelers bore the burden to prove that causal link.
- Travelers failed to disclose an expert in its case-in-chief; it later produced a rebuttal expert (Captain Ahlstrom) beyond the rebuttal-deadline and only as rebuttal; the district court excluded him from the plaintiff’s case-in-chief and granted summary judgment to Ocean Reef.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Travelers) | Defendant's Argument (Ocean Reef) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida’s anti-technical statute requires showing the warranty breach contributed to this specific loss | Only need to show lack of a full-time captain generally increased hazard; no need to prove it contributed to this accident | Anti-technical statute bars denial unless breach increased hazard in the specific accident | Court: Insurer must show the breach materially affected this specific loss; statute prevents avoidance for technical omissions that did not contribute |
| Whether Travelers could meet its burden without expert testimony in its case-in-chief | Lay testimony (owner Gollel) and testimony from former captain McCall (as a hybrid fact/expert) suffice to show increased hazard | Causation here is hypothetical and technical; expert testimony is required to show what a professional captain would have done | Court: Expert testimony was required; lay/hybrid testimony insufficient to prove what would have occurred and thus Travelers failed to carry its burden |
| Whether exclusion of Travelers’ rebuttal expert (Ahlstrom) for summary judgment was an abuse of discretion | District Court should have allowed redesignation or otherwise excused timing given remand and shifted burden | Travelers did not move to redesignate or to reopen discovery; rebuttal evidence may not be used to meet plaintiff’s burden at summary judgment | Court: No abuse of discretion; Travelers did not seek redesignation and could not use rebuttal-only expert to defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1955) (framework for when federal maritime rules preempt state law in marine insurance)
- Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC, 996 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2021) (prior panel decision holding Florida law applies under Wilburn)
- Serendipity at Sea, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Policy No. 187581, 56 F.4th 1280 (11th Cir. 2023) (application of Fla. Stat. § 627.409(2) in yacht-destruction case)
- Pickett v. Woods, 404 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) (anti-technical statute prevents denying coverage where breach did not contribute to accident)
- Com. Union Ins. Co. v. Flagship Marine Servs., Inc., 190 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1999) (federal rule: strict compliance with marine warranties in some contexts)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing permissible lay testimony from expert opinion)