Witkin Design Group v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
712 F. App'x 894
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- A wrongful-death suit was filed after an 11-year-old boy died in a car collision at an intersection in the Vizcaya development; the estate sued multiple parties, including Witkin Design Group, named as the landscape architect.
- Witkin allegedly designed and constructed the intersection negligently; the record does not clearly state when or by whom Witkin was hired.
- Witkin sought defense and indemnity from its insurer, Travelers, under a CGL policy and an Umbrella policy; both policies provided products-completed-operations (PCO) coverage but included a professional-services exclusion.
- The policies defined “professional services” as services requiring specialized skill or training and listed examples including design, drawing, supervision, construction administration, and inspection.
- Travelers refused coverage based on the professional-services exclusion; a magistrate judge and the district court granted summary judgment for Travelers, concluding the exclusion applied to Witkin’s alleged conduct.
- Witkin appealed; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding design/construction are professional services excluded from coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Travelers must defend/indemnify Witkin for the wrongful-death suit | Witkin: designing/constructing the intersection is PCO work covered by the policies, so Travelers owes defense/indemnity | Travelers: the professional-services exclusion bars coverage because design/construction are professional services requiring specialized skill | Court: Exclusion applies; no duty to defend or indemnify |
| Whether PCO coverage is separate from the CGL/Umbrella such that exclusion doesn't apply | Witkin: PCO coverage should be read to cover claims independent of the professional-services exclusion | Travelers: PCO coverage is part of the policies and thus subject to exclusions | Court: PCO coverage is part of the policies; exclusions apply to PCO claims |
| Whether policy language is ambiguous such that it must be construed for the insured | Witkin: policy could be ambiguous as to what counts as professional services | Travelers: language is clear and unambiguous | Court: language clear; examples and definition show design/construction qualify as professional services |
| Whether design/construction activities require “specialized skill or training” under the policy definition | Witkin: activities may be ordinary construction not requiring professional-skill exclusion | Travelers: architecture/construction services plainly require specialized skill | Court: design and construction qualify as professional services requiring specialized skill; exclusion applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Kragor v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 702 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.) (drawing inferences for nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Vector Products, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 397 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of insurance contract interpretation)
- LaFarge Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 118 F.3d 1511 (11th Cir.) (insurance contract interpretation principles)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts apply state law in diversity cases)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (choice-of-law in diversity cases)
- Keller v. Miami Herald Publ’g Co., 778 F.2d 711 (11th Cir.) (applying Erie/choice-of-law principles)
- Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 969 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2007) (construe insurance contracts by plain meaning)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pridgen, 498 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1986) (ambiguities construed for insured)
- Harrington v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 54 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (limits on considering subjective intent in contract interpretation)
- Deni Assocs. of Fla., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 678 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (contract interpretation authority cited for objective approach)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2000) (read policy as whole to give effect to all provisions)
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005) (no ambiguity where policy language is clear)