UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

November 09, 2022 

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Southern District of Florida

U.S. District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 

Appeal Number: 21-10949-DD 

Case Style: 15 OZ FRESH & HEALTHY FOODS LL v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London 

District Court Docket No: 1:20-cv-23407-AHS

A copy of this letter, and the judgment form if noted above, but not a copy of the court's 

decision, is also being forwarded to counsel and pro se parties. A copy of the court's decision 

was previously forwarded to counsel and pro se parties on the date it was issued. 

The enclosed copy of the judgment is hereby issued as mandate of the court. The court's opinion 

was previously provided on the date of issuance. 

Sincerely,

DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court 

Reply to: Lois Tunstall 

Phone #: (404) 335-6191 

Enclosure(s) 

MDT-1 Letter Issuing Mandate

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 1 of 1 

AP Nov 9, 2022 MIAMI

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 1 of 11
15 OZ FRESH & HEALTHY FOODS LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON 

KNOWN AS SYNDICATES AML 2001, 

WBC 5886, MMX 2010 AND SKD 1897, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-23407-AHS

____________________

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit 

____________________

No. 21-10949

____________________

ISSUED AS MANDATE: 11/09/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 1 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 2 of 11
2 21-10949

JUDGMENT

It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion issued on this date in this appeal is entered as the judgment of this 

Court.

Entered: October 11, 2022

For the Court: DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS MANDATE: 11/09/2022

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 2 of 2

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 3 of 11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10949

____________________

15 OZ FRESH & HEALTHY FOODS LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON 

KNOWN AS SYNDICATES AML 2001, 

WBC 5886, MMX 2010 AND SKD 1897, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-23407-AHS

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 1 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 4 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10949

____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, Circuit Judges, and SANDS,∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

15 Oz Fresh & Healthy Foods LLC (“15 Oz”) appeals the 

district court’s dismissal with prejudice of its six-count class-action 

complaint against Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Known as 

Syndicates AML 2001, WBC 5886, MMX 2010, and SKD 1897 

(“Underwriters”), concerning insurance coverage under Florida 

law for losses incurred by businesses as a result of the COVID-19 

pandemic.1 Because the parties are well aware of the facts, we will 

not restate them here. Instead, we start with 15 Oz’s pending 

motion to amend its complaint to include additional allegations of 

the parties’ citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. For 

the reasons below, we grant 15 Oz’s motion to amend its 

complaint, find that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and affirm 

∗ Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge for the Middle 

District of Georgia, sitting by designation. 

1 15 Oz’s complaint alleged that it sustained various COVID-19–related 

business losses that were covered by its insurance policy with Underwriters. 

Specifically, 15 Oz brought claims for a declaratory judgment and breach of 

contract on behalf of the business income class (counts one and two), a 

declaratory judgment and breach of contract on behalf of the extra expense 

coverage class (counts three and four), and a declaratory judgment and breach 

of contract on behalf of the civil authority coverage class (counts five and six).

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 2 of 6 

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 5 of 11
21-10949 Opinion of the Court 3

the district court’s dismissal of 15 Oz’s complaint for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

I. Motion to Amend 

We are “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction 

sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. 

Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). We must confirm 

that we have jurisdiction and that the district court did as well. Id. 

After examining 15 Oz’s complaint, we issued a jurisdictional 

question asking whether the pleadings sufficiently alleged the 

citizenship of the parties so as to invoke diversity jurisdiction in the 

first instance. The parties jointly responded, and 15 Oz filed an 

uncontested motion to amend its complaint to cure the insufficient 

citizenship allegations. We carried the jurisdictional issue and 

pending motion to amend with the case. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1653 and our precedent, we 

GRANT 15 Oz’s uncontested motion to amend its complaint. See

28 U.S.C. § 1653 (“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be 

amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”); Mallory & 

Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 

1304, 1305 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because we suspect there may be 

diversity of citizenship, [appellant] is invited to file in this 

court . . . a motion for leave to amend the complaint to correct the 

deficient allegations of citizenship.”). 

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 3 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 6 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10949

We must now decide whether 15 Oz’s amended complaint

alleges sufficient information to establish diversity jurisdiction. We 

hold that it does. 

In pertinent part, 15 Oz’s complaint now alleges that (a) 15 

Oz is a limited liability company organized to do business in Florida 

and (b) Lloyd’s Syndicate AML 2001—one of the defendantsyndicates—is comprised of only one capital provider, MS Amlin 

Corporate Member Limited, which is incorporated under the laws 

of England and Wales and has its principal place of business in 

London, England.2 Because 15 Oz brought a class-action 

complaint, we analyze diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action 

Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). We recognize that there is a 

2 The Lloyd’s of London insurance market is unique. To start, “Lloyd’s is not 

a company; it is a market somewhat analogous to the New York Stock 

Exchange.” Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd’s, 996 F.2d 1353, 1357 (2d Cir. 1993). Thus, 

Lloyd’s itself does not insure any risk. Individual underwriters, 

known as ‘Names’ or ‘members,’ assume the risk of the 

insurance loss. Names can be people or corporations; they 

sign up for certain percentages of various risks across several 

policies. 

. . . 

Names underwrite insurance through administrative entities 

called syndicates, which cumulatively assume the risk of a 

particular policy.

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1083 (11th 

Cir. 2010). 

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 4 of 6 

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 7 of 11
21-10949 Opinion of the Court 5

complicated question at the intersection of CAFA and one of our 

precedents, Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 

613 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2010), but we do not address that issue 

today because it is clear that diversity jurisdiction exists under any

resolution. 

In Osting-Schwinn, we held that Lloyd’s syndicates “fall 

squarely within the class of unincorporated associations for which 

the pleading of every member’s citizenship is essential to 

establishing diversity jurisdiction.” 613 F.3d at 1088 (emphasis 

added). Osting-Schwinn, however, did not consider diversity 

jurisdiction in the class action context. CAFA controls class actions, 

and provides that “an unincorporated association shall be deemed 

to be a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business 

and the State under whose laws it is organized.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(d)(10) (emphasis added). 

That is, the plain language of CAFA requires us to consider 

the principal place of business and state of incorporation of the 

association (syndicate) itself while Osting-Schwinn requires us to 

consider the citizenship of “every” underlying capital-contributing 

member. Compare id., with Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d at 1088. 

Because Lloyd’s Syndicate AML 2001 is a single-member syndicate, 

however, we need not resolve the conflict today. We conclude

there is diversity jurisdiction under any resolution of the conflict in 

authority, so we proceed to the merits of 15 Oz’s appeal. 

III. District Court’s Dismissal of 15 Oz’s Complaint 

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 5 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 8 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10949

We now affirm. Our precedent in SA Palm Beach LLC v. 

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London—issued while the instant 

case was pending and after the parties submitted their briefs—

squarely rejects 15 Oz’s argument that Florida law extends 

insurance coverage to business losses and expenses related to the 

COVID-19 pandemic, and it forecloses further consideration of this 

issue. 32 F.4th 1347, 1359–63 (11th Cir. 2022) (predicting that the 

Florida Supreme Court would follow the “majority view” and 

conclude that business income, extra expense, and civil authority 

provisions, among others, would be inadequate to trigger coverage

for losses and expenses incurred by businesses caused by COVID19 in similar Lloyd’s insurance policies under Florida law); see also,

e.g., Commodore, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 

342 So. 3d 697, 698–705 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (confirming this 

prediction); Suhaag Garden, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s 

London, No. 3D21-1803, -- So. 3d --, 2022 WL 3050339, at *1 (Fla. 

3d DCA Aug. 3, 2022) (same). In SA Palm Beach, we held that 

losses stemming from the suspension of business operations and 

extra costs incurred because of COVID-19 were insufficient under 

Florida law to trigger insurance coverage because they lacked the 

requisite “tangible alteration of the insured properties.” 32 F.4th at 

1350. So too here. 

MOTION TO AMEND GRANTED. AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 6 of 6

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 9 of 11
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

October 11, 2022

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES

Appeal Number: 21-10949-DD 

Case Style: 15 OZ FRESH & HEALTHY FOODS LL v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London 

District Court Docket No: 1:20-cv-23407-AHS

Electronic Filing

All counsel must file documents electronically using the Electronic Case Files ("ECF") system, 

unless exempted for good cause. Although not required, non-incarcerated pro se parties are 

permitted to use the ECF system by registering for an account at www.pacer.gov. Information 

and training materials related to electronic filing are available on the Court's website. Enclosed 

is a copy of the court's decision filed today in this appeal. Judgment has this day been entered 

pursuant to FRAP 36. The court's mandate will issue at a later date in accordance with FRAP 

41(b). 

The time for filing a petition for rehearing is governed by 11th Cir. R. 40-3, and the time for 

filing a petition for rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir. R. 35-2. Except as otherwise 

provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc is 

timely only if received in the clerk's office within the time specified in the rules. Costs are 

governed by FRAP 39 and 11th Cir.R. 39-1. The timing, format, and content of a motion for 

attorney's fees and an objection thereto is governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3. 

Please note that a petition for rehearing en banc must include in the Certificate of Interested 

Persons a complete list of all persons and entities listed on all certificates previously filed by 

any party in the appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1. In addition, a copy of the opinion sought to be 

reheard must be included in any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See

11th Cir. R. 35-5(k) and 40-1 . 

Counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must submit a voucher claiming 

compensation for time spent on the appeal no later than 60 days after either issuance of mandate 

or filing with the U.S. Supreme Court of a petition for writ of certiorari (whichever is later) via 

the eVoucher system. Please contact the CJA Team at (404) 335-6167 or 

cja_evoucher@ca11.uscourts.gov for questions regarding CJA vouchers or the eVoucher 

system. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 1 of 2 

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 10 of 11
Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs taxed against the appellant.

Please use the most recent version of the Bill of Costs form available on the court's website at 

www.ca11.uscourts.gov.

For questions concerning the issuance of the decision of this court, please call the number 

referenced in the signature block below. For all other questions, please call Bradly Wallace 

Holland, DD at 404-335-6181. 

Sincerely,

DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court 

Reply to: Djuanna H. Clark 

Phone #: 404-335-6151

OPIN-1A Issuance of Opinion With Costs

USCA11 Case: 21-10949 Date Filed: 10/11/2022 Page: 2 of 2 

Case 1:20-cv-23407-AHS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2022 Page 11 of 11