Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

February 2, 2018 by admin

Insurance — Commercial general liability — Coverage — Bodily injury or property damage — Duty to defend — Suit — Claim that notice and repair process for resolving construction disputes between property owners and contractors, subcontractors, suppliers or design professionals set forth in Chapter 558, Florida Statutes, constitutes a suit under insured’s commercial general liability insurance policy, so as to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend — Under Florida law, the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 is included in the CGL policy’s definition of “suit” as an alternative dispute resolution proceeding to which the insurer’s consent is required to invoke the insurer’s duty to defend

27
Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C564a

Insurance
— Commercial general liability — Coverage — Bodily injury or property damage
— Duty to defend — Suit — Claim that notice and repair process for resolving
construction disputes between property owners and contractors, subcontractors,
suppliers or design professionals set forth in Chapter 558, Florida Statutes,
constitutes a suit under insured’s commercial general liability insurance
policy, so as to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend — Under Florida law, the
notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 is included in the CGL
policy’s definition of “suit” as an alternative dispute resolution proceeding
to which the insurer’s consent is required to invoke the insurer’s duty to
defend

ALTMAN CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida
corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Arizona company, Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No.
15-12816. January 26, 2018. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (No. 9:13-cv-80831-KAM).
(Before JORDAN and FAY, Circuit
Judges, and FRIEDMAN,* District Judge.)
(PER CURIAM.) This case returns to
us after our certification of a dispositive question of state law to the
Florida Supreme Court. For background, we refer the reader to our previous
opinion in this case, Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster
Specialty Ins. Co.
, 832 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2016) [26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed.
C588a]. In that opinion, we certified the following question:
Is the
notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a
“suit” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI?
Id.
at 1326. The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative,
explaining that “[a]lthough the chapter 558 process does not constitute a
‘civil proceeding,’ it is included in the policy’s definition of ‘suit’ as an
‘alternative dispute resolution proceeding’ to which the insurer’s consent is
required to invoke the insurer’s duty to defend the insured.” Altman
Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.
, __ So. 3d __,
No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535, at *5 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017) [42 Fla. L. Weekly
S960b]. The Florida Supreme Court did “not address whether, in this case,
C&F consented to [ACI’s] participation in the chapter 558 process because
it [was] outside the scope of the certified question and an issue of fact disputed
by the parties.” Id.
The Florida Supreme Court,
therefore, reached a different conclusion than did the district court regarding
whether chapter 558 constitutes an alternative dispute resolution proceeding
(and accordingly a “suit” under the CGL policies at issue). Compare id. with
Altman Contractors
, 832 F.3d at 1325 (explaining district court’s holding
that chapter 558 is not an alternative dispute resolution proceeding and,
therefore, not a ‘suit’ under the CGL policies). Because “state courts are the
ultimate expositors of state law,” Reaves v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr.,
717 F.3d 886, 903 (11th Cir. 2013) [24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C321a], the Florida
Supreme Court’s determination on this point is dispositive. Given the benefit
of this answer to our certified question, we reverse the grant of summary
judgment in favor of C&F, vacate the final judgment, and remand this case
to the district court for further proceedings. We thank the Florida Supreme
Court for accepting, and answering, the certified question.
REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED.
__________________
*The Honorable Paul L. Friedman,
United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by
designation.
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982