United Rentals, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25065
| S.D. Fla. | 2012Background
- Estate of Larry C. Ferguson sues United Rentals for strict liability and negligence arising from a scissor lift incident on a Florida job site (May 19, 2008).
- Scissor lift leased from United Rentals to General Southern under a Rental Agreement that includes indemnity and insurance obligations.
- Mid-Continent issued Primary and Excess insurance policies insuring General Southern; policies contemplate additional insureds only via an insured contract or written agreement; indemnity clause has limitations under Florida law.
- United Rentals seeks coverage under the Primary and Excess policies and asserts breach/defense rights due to Mid-Continent’s refusal to defend/indemnify.
- Mid-Continent filed third-party claims against General Southern and United Rentals filed this action seeking declarations and breach relief; issue involves whether United Rentals and General Southern fall within the policies’ insured/indemnity provisions.
- Court grants summary judgment that the policies do not cover United Rentals as an additional insured or indemnitee and do not cover General Southern for United Rentals’s cross-claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether United Rentals is an additional insured under the Primary Policy | United Rentals argues it is an additional insured via insured contract with General Southern | Mid-Continent contends no valid insured contract exists and the indemnity clause is void for lack of monetary limitation | No coverage; United Rentals not an additional insured under Primary Policy |
| Whether United Rentals is an additional insured under the Excess Policy | United Rentals alleges clause e extends coverage through the Primary Policy or written agreement | Excess Policy requires valid insured contract or underlying insured contract; none exists | No coverage; not an insured under Excess Policy |
| Whether United Rentals is an indemnitee under the Primary Policy’s supplemental payments provision | Rental Agreement creates insured contract triggering supplementary payments | No valid insured contract; policy limits indemnity to vicarious liability | No coverage; no valid insured contract supporting indemnitee status |
| Whether Mid-Continent has a duty to defend or indemnify General Southern against United Rentals’s cross-claims | Cross-claims seek contractual indemnification and breach of contract | Policies cover bodily injury/property damage only; no insured contract to cover contract-based claims | No duty to defend/indemnify General Southern for cross-claims |
| Overall interpretation of insurance contract language under Florida law | Ambiguities favor coverage; terms should be read in favor of insureds | Plain language limits to vicarious liability; no ambiguity in insured contract terms | Unambiguous; favors insurer; no coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161 (Fla. 2003) (insur. contracts construed by plain terms; ambiguities against insurer)
- Shaw v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 605 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2010) (ambiguities construed against insurer; policy language governs)
- Trailer Bridge, Inc. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 657 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2011) (insurance contracts interpreted for ambiguities; public policy favored for coverage in some contexts)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (Florida law on ambiguity and policy construction in insurance contracts)
- Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swindal, 622 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1993) (statutory limitations on indemnification agreements in construction contracts)