Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-13-11685/USCOURTS-ca11-13-11685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 13-11685

Non-Argument Calendar

__________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-20771-PCH

AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SIMON ROOFTING & SHEET METAL CORP.,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________

(January 6, 2014)

Before WILSON, COX, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

A declaratory judgment action in the district court involved a dispute 

between Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, the insured, and its excess 

USCA11 Case: 13-11685 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 1 of 3
2

insurer, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. Simon Roofing was 

sued by one of its customers for allegedly causing considerable damage to its 

customer, Florida Diversified Films, Inc., in negligent restoration of the customer’s 

roof. The result was a judgment in favor of Florida Diversified for $1.49 million. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American Guarantee, and 

Simon Roofing appeals. 

We address two issues on appeal; we find them dispositive. First, did Simon 

Roofing breach the notice provisions in the policy? And, second, if it did, was 

American Guarantee prejudiced by the late notice? The district court concluded 

that Simon Roofing did breach the notice provisions, and that American Guarantee 

was prejudiced by the late notice. We agree with the district court.

The parties agree that Pennsylvania law applies. We first look at whether 

Simon breached the policy’s notice provision. Specifically, we address Simon’s 

sub-issues asking whether the contract is ambiguous and whether the district court 

properly interpreted the contract. We agree with the district court that the notice 

provisions of the contract are not ambiguous. We also agree with the district 

court’s construction of the relevant provisions of the contract. The district court 

properly interpreted the contract to give full meaning to the relevant provisions. 

(Doc. 168 at 8–12). And it properly found that Simon breached these provisions.

USCA11 Case: 13-11685 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 2 of 3
3

Based on the facts stated by the parties, we also agree with the district court 

that American Guarantee suffered prejudice as a result of Simon’s breach. The 

district court properly decided this issue at the summary judgment stage of 

proceedings. (Doc. 168 at 12–17). 

The Conclusion in the district court’s order is a good summary of what this 

case was about. The court said:

American Guarantee’s excess policy provided in unmistakable terms 

that Simon must give notice of any occurrence that may involve the 

excess policy. One year after Simons’s negligent roof restoration, it 

came to light that Florida Diversified Films claimed $3.572 million in 

damages. At that point it was not only reasonably, but entirely, 

possible that the excess policy would be implicated. Yet Simon waited 

until three years had elapsed and a $1.49 million judgment entered 

against it to notify American Guarantee of the occurrence—i.e. the 

negligent roof restoration and resulting damage. By waiting this long, 

Simon deprived American Guarantee of any opportunity to produce a 

more favorable outcome, much less protect itself from an unfavorable 

judgment.

(Doc. 168 at 17)

As a result of Simon’s breach and the resulting prejudice suffered by 

American Guarantee, we find no error in the district court’s conclusion that 

American Guarantee is not obligated to provide coverage to Simon.

AFFIRMED.1

 

1 We have considered the supplemental briefs on the issue of our jurisdiction and 

conclude that we have jurisdiction.

USCA11 Case: 13-11685 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Page: 3 of 3