Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-16-10996/USCOURTS-ca11-16-10996-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Appellee
Elite Homes, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10996

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-01182-TJC-MCR

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELITE HOMES, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 23, 2017)

Before HULL, MARCUS, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 1 of 10
2

Elite Homes, Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in 

favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Company, arguing that Auto-Owners has a duty 

to defend it in an underlying state court action. After review of the record and 

consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

I

We first review the underlying litigation that gave rise to Elite Homes’ claim 

for a defense, and then set out the terms of the relevant policy.

A

On March 21, 2007, Joseph and Emily Crozier entered into a written 

contract with Elite Homes for the construction of a single-family residence. 

Shortly after construction was completed in June of 2008, the Croziers began 

experiencing problems due to water intrusion from the property’s windows. Elite 

Homes made several repairs over the subsequent years, but they proved to be 

ineffective. Around January of 2014, the Croziers obtained inspection and testing 

reports which revealed elevated levels of toxic mold and opined that construction 

and installation defects caused the active water intrusion. In compliance with 

Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes, the Croziers gave Elite Homes notice and a 

final opportunity to cure the problems with the property. The Croziers were not 

satisfied with Elite Homes’ proposed plan to remedy the problem, and sued Elite 

Homes in state circuit court, asserting claims for breach of contract and negligence.

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 2 of 10
3

Elite Homes then notified its insurer, Auto-Owners, of the Croziers’ lawsuit, which 

remains pending. See Croziers v. Elite Homes, Inc., Case No. 16-2014-CA-003913 

(Fla. Duval Cir. Ct. 2014).

B

Auto-Owners issued a Commercial General Liability Policy to Elite Homes

on October 15, 2007. The policy provides the following coverage for “[p]roperty 

damage”:

a. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated 

to pay as damages because of . . . “property damage” to which this 

insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the 

insured against any “suit” seeking those damages.

D.E. 1-2 at 3. “Property damage” is defined as:

a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of 

use of that property. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at 

the time of the physical injury that caused it; or

b. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. All 

such loss shall be deemed to occur at the time of the “occurrence” that 

caused it.

Id. at 22. The policy excludes from coverage damage to “[y]our work,” id. 

at 8, which is defined as:

(1) Work or operations performed by you or on your behalf; and

(2) Materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such 

work or operations.

Id. at 23. “Your work” includes:

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 3 of 10
4

(1) Warranties or representations made at any time with respect to the 

fitness, quality, durability, performance or use of “your work”; and 

(2) The providing of or failure to provide warnings or instructions.

Id. 

II

After being notified of the Croziers’ lawsuit, Auto-Owners defended Elite 

Homes under a reservation of rights. On September 29, 2014, Auto-Owners filed 

this federal action seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have a duty to 

defend or a duty to indemnify Elite Homes in the Croziers’ lawsuit.1

 

Auto-Owners contended that Elite Homes’ policy did not cover the damages 

claimed by the Croziers. Auto-Owners and Elite Homes filed cross-motions for 

summary judgment. 

The district court granted Auto-Owners’ motion for summary judgment. 

The district court stated that, based on the agreement of Elite Homes and AutoOwners at oral argument, the sole issue before it was whether the Amended 

Complaint in the underlying action sufficiently alleged damage to “other property” 

so that the claims would not be barred by the policy’s “Damages To Your Work” 

 1 By agreement of the parties, these two issues were bifurcated, and the duty to indemnify 

portion of the case was abated pending the outcome of the underlying case. The duty to defend 

is “separate and apart from the duty to indemnify and the insurer may be required to defend a suit 

even if the later true facts show there is no coverage.” Trizec Props., Inc. v. Biltmore Constr. 

Co., Inc., 767 F.2d 810, 812 (11th Cir. 1985). As such, an insurer’s duty to defend is “of greater 

breadth than the insurer’s duty to indemnify.” Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc., 908 So. 2d 

435, 443 (Fla. 2005).

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 4 of 10
5

exclusion. Auto-Owners’ position was that the damages alleged in the underlying 

action fell solely within the policy’s exclusion provisions. Elite Homes’ position 

was that the allegations in the Croziers’ amended complaint sufficiently alleged

damages that were covered under the policy, thereby requiring Auto-Owners to 

provide a defense.

The district court reviewed three allegations in the amended complaint with 

respect to damage: there was “extensive damage to other property includ[ing] the 

frame subsurface, sheathing, insulation, drywall, and interior finishes,” D.E. 16 at

24, ¶ 14; there was “damage to interior portions of the home,” id. at 28, ¶ 32; and 

there was “damage to other property including, but not limited to, exterior wood 

framing, wood substrate, vapor barriers, insulation, drywall, and interior finishes,” 

id. at 28, ¶ 33. The district court reasoned that, to the extent the damage in the 

underlying action was to the structure of the property and Elite Homes’ defective 

work, such damage was excluded under the “Damages To Your Work” provision 

of the policy. Further, the district court stated that “conclusory buzz words” and 

inferences were insufficient to bring the allegations of damage within coverage 

since even under the “most liberal and broadest of readings” of the underlying 

amended complaint, it did not contain allegations of damage to personal property 

or property other than the home itself. 

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 5 of 10
6

The district court concluded that the allegations of damage in the underlying 

action related only to the structure of the property itself, which both Auto-Owners 

and Elite Homes conceded were excluded under the policy. Accordingly, the 

district court held that Auto-Owners had no duty to defend Elite Homes in the 

Croziers’ action. Elite Homes now appeals. 

III

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See State 

Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Steinberg, 393 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact. See 

Thrasher v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 734 F.2d 637, 638 (11th Cir. 1984). The 

parties agree that Florida law governs.

A

We determine whether Auto-Owners has a duty to defend Elite Homes in the 

underlying action by looking only at the allegations in the Croziers’ amended 

complaint. See, e.g., Jones, 908 So. 2d at 443. The duty to defend an entire action 

arises when the underlying complaint alleges “facts that fairly and potentially bring 

the suit within policy coverage.” Id. at 442–43 (emphasis added). Further, if “the 

complaint alleges facts partially within and partially outside the scope of coverage, 

the insurer is obligated to defend the entire suit.” Trizec Props., Inc., 767 F.2d at 

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 6 of 10
7

811–12. Any doubts about whether the duty to defend is triggered are resolved in 

favor of the insured. Jones, 908 So. 2d at 443. 

An insurer has no duty to defend if the complaint shows the applicability of 

a policy exclusion. See Keen v. Fla. Sheriffs’ Self-Insurance Fund, 962 So. 2d 

1021, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (ruling that insurer had no duty to defend because

allegations in the complaint fell within the policy exclusion). Thus, “[t]he 

allegations within the complaint must state a cause of action that seeks recovery for 

the type of damages covered by the insurance policy in question.” State Farm Fire 

& Cas. Co. v. Tippett, 864 So. 2d 31, 35–36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Conclusory 

“buzz words,” like allegations that fail to allege any underlying facts that create a 

duty to defend, are insufficient. See Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Marine 

Distribs., Inc., 771 So. 2d 579, 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that use of buzz

words were insufficient to trigger coverage); Steinberg, 393 F.3d at 1230

(“Conclusory buzz words unsupported by factual allegations are not sufficient to 

trigger coverage.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

B

The parties agree that Elite Homes’ own work is excluded under the 

“Damages To Your Work” exclusion. See Appellant’s Br. at 7 (“[T]he 

[u]nderlying [c]omplaint need only fairly and potentially, not specifically, allege 

the existence of damage to property other than that included within Elite Homes’ 

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 7 of 10
8

scope of work.”); Appellee’s Br. at 13 (“There is no dispute that repairs to the 

entirety of the Croziers’ home itself . . . are damage to general contractor Elite 

Homes’ ‘work,’ and therefore, excluded from coverage.”) (emphasis added). This 

is consistent with how courts in Florida have interpreted similar “Damage to Your 

Work” provisions. See Nova Cas. Co. v. Willis, 39 So. 3d 434, 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2010) (affirming lower court’s determination that “your work” exclusion applied to 

work completed on private owner’s property but did not apply to work incorrectly 

performed on state property); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Deluxe Sys., Inc. of 

Fla., 711 So. 2d 1293, 1297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (concluding that purchase and 

installation of replacement shelving components fell within “your work” 

exclusion); Miranda Const. Dev., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 763 F. Supp. 2d 

1336, 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (holding that claim was barred by “your work” 

exclusion because underlying complaint only alleged damage to owner’s home).

The parties’ sole disagreement concerns whether the amended complaint 

sufficiently alleged damages beyond the “Damages To Your Work” exclusion. 

Specifically, the dispute is about whether the following allegations are sufficient to 

allege damage beyond Elite Homes’ work: “extensive damage to other property

includ[ing] the frame subsurface, sheathing, insulation, drywall, and interior 

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 8 of 10
9

finishes,” D.E. 16 at 24, ¶ 14, and “damage to interior portions of the home.” Id. at 

28, ¶ 32.

2

Elite Homes contends that the use of those phrases sufficiently implicates

damages to “other property” that are outside of Elite Homes’ own work. We 

disagree. A fair reading of the allegations of the Croziers’ amended complaint 

leads us to conclude that Auto-Owners does not have a duty to defend Elite Homes

in the underlying action.3 The district court correctly concluded that the amended 

complaint contains no factual allegations of damage to property other than the 

work performed by Elite Homes, and that the use of conclusory phrases such as 

“other property” is insufficient. 

Elite Homes also argues that the district court’s holding essentially requires 

the underlying complaint to specifically identify particular property damage to 

trigger Auto-Owners’ duty to defend and that this level of specificity is 

unnecessary. Although we agree that such a level of specificity is not required 

under Florida law, in this case the language in the amended complaint is too vague 

for us to assume that the Croziers alleged anything other than damages to the 

 2 In the summary judgment proceedings below, the parties referred to a third provision, D.E. 16

at 28, ¶ 33, in their briefs. The district court in turn relied on all three provisions when it granted 

Auto-Owners’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, however, Elite Homes only relies on

two provisions. 

3 Although the Croziers amended their complaint during the pendency of this case in the district 

court, the damages allegations were not amended.

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 9 of 10
10

home, and therefore Elite Homes’ own work. As a result, the damage alleged falls 

squarely within the “Damage to Your Work” exclusion.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Auto-Owners has no duty to defend 

Elite Homes in the underlying action, and affirm the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 16-10996 Date Filed: 01/23/2017 Page: 10 of 10