Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, the personal representative of Paola Penafiel, filed suit against GEICO, alleging Coblentz v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y. bad faith claims. On appeal, GEICO challenged the judgment in favor of plaintiff. The court agreed with GEICO that the district court erred in denying the admission of evidence of the development of Florida law as it pertained to whether an insurance policy GEICO issued to Edgar Baena (Edgar) covered a vehicle collision involving Edgar and Penafiel. The court also agreed with GEICO that the district court improperly excluded evidence of earlier decisions of the district court rejecting the theory on which plaintiff based her argument that coverage existed. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Garcia v. Geico General Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against USAA, seeking to recover a portion of their insurance premium payments because they would have elected to pay for building ordinance and law (BOL) insurance covering only 25% of their home's value. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of their complaint. The court agreed with the district court that the plain language of Florida Statutes 627.7011(2) does not require an insurer to obtain a policyholder’s written consent on a form approved by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation before issuing BOL coverage greater than 25%. Further, Florida Statutes 627.418(1) bars plaintiffs' suit because the only remedy available for providing extra insurance coverage is to enforce the contract as written. In this case, plaintiffs freely contracted to buy 50% coverage, that is exactly what they received, and no legal basis exists for reducing their premium payments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Allen v. U.S. Automobile Assoc." on Justia Law

The Parish filed suit against Kiker, alleging that Kiker breached the implied warranty in the parties' contract to repair Parish's roof using reasonable skill. At issue was whether Penn National has a duty to indemnify its insured, Kiker, with respect to a judgment Parish obtained against Kiker for breach of contract. The court concluded that, because the conduct that caused damage to the Parish was accidental, the damage is covered under the policy. The court also held that the contractual liability exclusion is inapplicable in this case and therefore, the district court erred in granting Penn National's summary judgment motion and denying the Parish's motion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Pennsylvania Nat'l Mutual Cas. Ins. Co. v. St. Catherine of Sienna Parish" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant J. Brian O'Neill purchased the Bryemere, a sport-fishing vessel, in 2006. As he negotiated the Bryemere’s price, O’Neill incorporated a limited-liability company in the state of Rhode Island, Carolina Acquisition, LLC to take ownership of the vessel. O’Neill then applied for a preferred ship mortgage with Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) to fund the Bryemere’s cost. O’Neill signed the mortgage in his capacity as managing member of Carolina, using the ship as collateral. As a condition of the loan, BOA required proof of insurance for the Bryemere, and requested that the insurance policy contain a mortgage clause that would protect BOA’s interests as a mortgagee in the event the underlying insurance policy was found void. O’Neill’s insurance broker, Willis of Pennsylvania, Inc., sought an insurance quote for the Bryemere from AIG Centennial Insurance Company. Susan Bonner, an underwriter, handled the application process on behalf of AIG. Sharon King, a broker, was assigned to O’Neill’s case on behalf of Willis. Instead of working directly with King, O’Neill delegated the task of obtaining insurance for the Bryemere to his executive secretary, Desiree Foulds. Instead of explaining the insurance-application process to Foulds, King forwarded the application to Foulds without comment and returned the application Foulds had completed to Bonner without reviewing it for accuracy or completeness. Foulds made three mistakes on the application that were relevant to this appeal: (1) she listed O’Neill as the owner of the vessel instead of Carolina; (2) in response to a question about whether the owner or captain had ever suffered any “losses,” she disclosed one prior loss in 2003, when O’Neill lost a boat due to fire, when in fact (by his own admission at trial) O’Neill had suffered two additional losses that went undisclosed: propeller damage to his Ocean yacht and a blown engine on his sailing vessel; and (3) Foulds listed the Bryemere’s purchase price as $2.35 million, when the closing statement reflected a purchase price of $2.125 million. AIG issued the final policy. Following the Bryemere’s purchase, O’Neill invested $225,000 to pay for repairs recommended for the ship. During the voyage from Florida to Rhode Island, the crew “noticed considerable flexing in the vessel’s hull.” Upon arrival in Rhode Island, several marine experts inspected the Bryemere and concluded that it suffered from a number of structural defects rendering the vessel, in the words of one marine surveyor, “un-seaworthy, dangerous and unsafe for any use.” O’Neill then submitted a claim to AIG for coverage under his insurance policy. In response, AIG filed a declaratory judgment action with the federal district court in Florida seeking affirmation that the insurance policy was void ab initio as to both O’Neill and BOA. After an eight-day bench trial, the District Court issued an order finding that neither O’Neill nor BOA could recover under the policy. As to O’Neill, the District Court held that the misrepresentations regarding O’Neill’s prior loss history and the Bryemere’s purchase price rendered the policy void ab initio under the maritime doctrine of uberrimae fidei. As to BOA, the District Court held, among other things, that the named insured on the policy, O’Neill, was not the mortgagor on the loan and that BOA had no rights under the standard mortgage clause as a result. O’Neill and BOA appealed. But finding no reversible error, however, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court. View "AIG Centennial Insurance Co. v. O'Neill" on Justia Law

After discovering a number of defects in their home, plaintiffs Hugh and Katherine Carithers filed suit against their homebuilder, Cronk Duch, in state court. Cronk Duch’s insurance company, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, refused to defend the action on behalf of Cronk Duch. The Carithers and Cronk Duch then entered into a consent judgment in the underlying action for approximately $90,000, in favor of the Carithers. The consent judgment also assigned to the Carithers Cronk Duch’s right to collect the judgment amount from Mid-Continent. The Carithers then filed this action against Mid-Continent in state court to collect from Mid-Continent on the settlement. Mid-Continent removed the case to the Middle District of Florida. The Carithers are the Plaintiffs in this action due to Cronk Duch’s assignment of its rights to them. The Fifth Circuit, after careful consideration, affirmed in part, and reversed in part, addressing a number of coverage issues related to damage from the completed house caused by the defective work of subcontractors. View "Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. Two cases before the Eleventh Circuit involved three Stranger-Originated Life Insurance (STOLI policies). Wells Fargo, N.A., the present owner of a STOLI policy on the life of Arlene Berger, appealed a district court's final judgment, entered in favor of Pruco Life Insurance Company, invalidating this policy. Regarding the second appeal, Pruco appealed a different district court's order dismissing its claim seeking the invalidation of two STOLI policies issued on the life of Rosalind Guild. The insurance company contended that, as with most STOLI policies, there was no such interest when these policies were issued, which the company says entitled it to have the policies declared void. Undermining the insurance company's argument, however, was another Florida statute requiring all insurance policies to include a clause providing that the policy is incontestable after it has been "in force" for two years. The policies at issue here contained such a clause, and the insurance company clearly failed to contest the policies within that two-year window. Thus, the question before the Eleventh Circuit was which statute controlled. Federal district courts have disagreed when asked how to interpret Florida law in this regard. View "Pruco Life Insurance Company v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Eleventh Circuit's review centered on an insurance-coverage dispute that began in 2011 between Severin and Stephanie Hegel and The First Liberty Insurance Corporation. The Hegels claimed that First Liberty improperly denied their claim for a "sinkhole loss," defined under their homeowner's insurance policy as "structural damage to the building, including the foundation, caused by sinkhole activity." First Liberty argued that the damage to the Hegels' residence did not qualify as "structural damage," a term that was not defined in either the policy or the version of the Florida sinkhole-insurance statute applicable to their claim. The the district court granted summary judgment for the Hegels, finding that "structural damage" meant any "damage to the structure" and awarded them $166,518.17 in damages. First Liberty appealed. After review, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded: the district court erred in equating the contractual term "structural damage" with any "damage to the structure." The case was remanded for further proceedings on whether there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding how much, if any, structural damage to the Hegels' house (as properly defined) was due to sinkhole activity. The district court's determination on this issue will in turn lead to either a new grant of summary judgment for the appropriate party or to a trial on the merits. View "Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Imperial Premium Finance LLC was implicated in a life insurance scheme. Imperial’s primary business involved stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI), yet its business was not a STOLI in its purest form: instead of buying a policy on a person's life outright, Imperial provided financing for life insurance premiums in the form of loans whose terms allowed Imperial to foreclose on the policy and become the policy owner if the borrower defaulted. Seeking to evade "insurable interest" requirements, Imperial drafted its loan agreements to require that during the term of the loan the policy be held in irrevocable trust (with a trustee chosen by Imperial) for the benefit of the insured’s relatives. In late 2007, Florida resident Barton Cotton met with an insurance agent to buy a multimillion-dollar life insurance policy and finance the premium payments. Cotton was ultimately referred to Imperial about financing the premium payments. Cotton and an irrevocable trust in his name applied to Lincoln National Life Insurance Company for an $8 million life insurance policy. The beneficiaries of the trust were Cotton’s wife and children. Cotton falsely stated on the insurance application that he was not buying the policy for resale and that he would not use a third party to finance the premium payments. Lincoln issued Cotton a $5 million policy, which became an asset of the Cotton trust. Premium payments were advanced to the trust until Imperial lent the trust $335,000. The trust used that money to repay the advance and to continue making the premium payments. Because of the high interest rate and an “origination fee," after less than two years, Imperial’s $335,000 loan to the Cotton trust had ballooned to more than $557,000. Cotton was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. The loan used to finance the policy reached maturity and became due, and Cotton died two months after that. At the time of his death the trust had not paid back Imperial for the loan, but Imperial had not yet foreclosed on it, which left the trust for the benefit of Cotton’s family as the record owner of the policy. After learning of Cotton’s death, Lincoln launched an investigation which turned up the fact that Imperial had financed the purchase of the policy on Cotton’s life under a STOLI scheme. Lincoln refused to pay the death benefit. In April 2011 the Cotton trustee sued Lincoln for the benefit. Lincoln counterclaimed, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. Imperial asked its outside counsel to represent the trust. During discovery, Lincoln sought to depose Imperial under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the topics included in Lincoln’s subpoena touched on subjects related to the criminal investigation, Imperial’s managers and employees exercised their individual Fifth Amendment rights and all refused to testify in the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in the Lincoln case. Imperial's proffered expert witness was unable to answer questions at the deposition or at trial specific to the facts of the Cotton trust case. The jury later returned a verdict in favor of the trust, finding that though Cotton and others conspired to commit an unlawful act, Lincoln had not relied on or been damaged by the misrepresentations, and therefore not injured by the conspiracy. The court notified the parties that it was considering sanctions against Imperial and its proffered expert due to the witness' poor "performance" and lack of preparation at trial. After a hearing, the court assessed sanctions against Imperial. Imperial appealed that sanctions order. Finding that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and its imposition of sanctions was not an abuse of discretion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions order. View "Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Imperial Premium Finance Company, LLC" on Justia Law

The Bank filed a claim with Travelers for the loss incurred with a long-time customer's default. The customer had pledged various assets as collateral for a loan including stock certificates representing shares in The Securance Group. The court held that, under Alabama law, a financial institution bond's definition of "counterfeit" - "an imitation which is intended to deceive and to be taken as an original" - does not encompass a duly authorized stock certificate procured under false pretenses. In this case, Certificate No. 11 at issue was fraudulently procured and, as such, valueless, it was an authentic document and thus not "counterfeit" under the terms of the bond. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Travelers. View "Bank of Brewton v. The Travelers Companies" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim against Zenith after Santana Morales, Jr. was crushed to death by a palm tree while working as a landscaper for Lawns. The Florida Supreme Court answered the following certified questions in the affirmative: (1) Does the estate have standing to bring its breach of contract claim against Zenith under the employer liability policy? (2) If so, does the provision in the employer liability policy which excludes from coverage "any obligation imposed by workers' compensation... law" operate to exclude coverage of the estate's claim against Zenith for the tort judgment? and (3) If the estate's claim is not barred by the workers' compensation exclusion, does the release in the workers' compensation settlement agreement otherwise prohibit the estate's collection of the tort judgment? The court concluded that, given the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of the certified issues, the district court correctly determined that the workers' compensation exclusion in Part II of the policy barred Zenith's coverage of the tort judgment against Lawns. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Zenith. View "Morales v. Zenith Ins. Co." on Justia Law