FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 10, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 13 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 10 8 C V-3 -RV-M D DELTA HEALTHGROUP INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROYAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMP ANY, a Fo rei gn Co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ju ne 10 , 20 09 ) Befo re WILSON andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es , andGOLDBERG, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM:
Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , United States Court of International TradeJ udg e, * sitti ngby designation.App el la ntan d C ro ss -Ap pe ll ee Del taHeal thGroup In c. (“ Delt a”) app eal s

fro m a jury verd ic t l arg el y

in fav orof i ts in su rer, Ap pe ll ee an d C ro ss -Ap pe ll an t Ro y al Surp lu s Li ne s In su ran ce Co m pa ny (“ Ro y al ”), i n asu itco nc ern in g t he sco pe of Ro y al ’s du ty to d efen d a ndin de m ni fy Delt a u nd er v ari ou s i ns ur an ce ag reem en ts be twee n Del taan d R oyal. Delt a an d R oyal al so each ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ct
co urt’s o rd er d en y in g t he ir r es pe ct iv e m ot io ns foratt orne y ’s fees fol lo win g t he jury’ s v erd ic t. Fo r th e rea so ns de sc rib edbe lo w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of a tt orne y ’s fees to bo th pa rti es , andwe affi rm with re sp ectto Delt a’s ap pe al an d a ls o wi th res pe ctto Ro y al ’s cro ss -ap pe al
. FACTS Delt a o wns , op erat es , andm an ag es nu rs in g h om e fac il it ie s i n s ev eral st at es . Ro y al is anin su ran ce co m pa ny tha t i ss ue d t wo p ro fes si on al he al th care li ab il it y in su ran ce p ol ic ie s t o Del ta(“ Ro y al Pri m ary po li ci es ”). Fo ll owi ng th e ex pi rat io n o f th e se co ndRo y al Pri m ary po li cy , Delt a o bt ai ne d p rimary po li cy co ve rag e fro m Lex in gt onIns ur an ce Co m pa ny (“ th e Lex in gt on po li cy ”). The Lexi ng to n p ol ic y requi redth e sa ti sf

act io n o f a $ 50 ,00 0 s el f-i ns ur edret en ti on be fo re the Lexi ng to n po li cy wou ldpro vi de co ve rag e. Als o, i n t he Lexi ng to n p ol ic y , def en se co st s ero de d t he $3 mil li on ag gr eg at e li m it . Royal al so is su edtwo um br el lapo li ci es to Delt a, whi ch affo rd edex ces s co ve rag e ab ov e Del ta ’s pri m ary po li ci es (“ Ro y al 2Um

br el lapo li ci es ”). Bec au se th e Lex in gt on po li cy di d n otpro vi de su ffi ci en t pr im ary co ve rag e u nd er the term s o f th e se co ndRo y al Um br el lapo li cy , Royal an d Delt a n eg ot ia te d an a m en dm en t t o t he sec on d R oyal Um br el lapo li cy

un de r whi ch , in th e ev en t tha t the Lexi ng to n p ol ic y was e xh au st ed , Delt a was requi redas asel fin su redto pro vi de co ve rag e fo r th e fi rs t $ 1,0 00 ,00 0 p er o ccu rren ce, an d t o p ro vi de it s o wn d efen se co st s b efo re the Ro y al Um br el lapo li cy

wou ldtak e eff

ect . Num ero us pe op le fil edsu itag ai ns t Del taforall eg edin jury at th e h an ds of Delt a em pl oyees o r ag en ts . Man y

of t he cla im s i m

pl ic at edth e p eri od s co ve redby th e Ro y al Pri m ary po li ci es an d t he pe rio ds co ve redby the Lexi ng to n p ol ic y an d Delt a’s se lf- in su ran ce. Fo r th os e cl ai m s i m pl ic at in g t he Ro y al Pri m ary po li ci es an d th e Lex in gt on po li cy , Delt a an d R oyal ag reedto sh are d efen se co st s u nt il Delt a sa ti sf ie d t he $5 0,0 00 sel f-i ns ur edret en ti on requi rem en t u nd er the Lexi ng to n po li cy . Royal an d Lex in gt on th ensh aredde fen se s co st s u nt il th e ex haus ti onof t he Lex in gt onpo li cy . After t he ex haus ti on of the Lexi ng to n p ol ic y , Delt a an d R oyal ag ai n s ha redth e co st s o f de fen di ng th e u nd erl y in g s ui ts . Delt a an d R oyal al so sh aredset tl em en t p aym en ts forun de rlyin g c la im s i nv ol vi ng in juri es oc cu rri ng aft er th e ex haus ti on of t he sec on d R oyal Pri m ary po li cy . Delt a b ro ug htsu itin 20 05 ag ai ns t Ro y al , see ki ng de cl arat ory jud gm en t t ha t Ro y al owedDelt a a co m

pl et e d efen se on all of t he un de rlyin g c la im s an d

3rep aym en t o f th e d efen se co st s Del taha d e xp en de d u nd er the co st -s ha rin g

ag reem en ts . Delt a la te r ad de d acla im forin de m

ni fic at io n fo r th e am ou nt s t ha t Delt a h adco nt rib ut edto set tl em en t. Ro y al co un te r-cl ai m ed , all eg in g t ha t t he Ro y al Pri m ary po li ci es requi redDelt a to pa y a $5 0,0 00 de du ct ib le for each cla im , andth at Delt a h adrefu se d t o p ay

th e d educ ti bl e in m an y

cas es . Thi s ca se wentto jury tri al in th e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. At the be gi nn in g o f tr ia l, the di st ric t ju dg e ru le d a s a m at te r of law t ha t Ro y al owedDelt a a co m pl et e d efen se in all of t he un de rlyin g c as es . The jury fou nd , ho wev er, tha t Delt a h adva li dl y

ag reedto sh are c os ts in th e d efen se of a ll of t he cas es . The jury al so fou ndth atRo y al sh ou ldha ve in de m ni fie d Del taforth e se tt le m en t co st s o f
on ly one of the un de rlyin g c as es . Becau se th e p art ie s h adearl ie r st ip ul at edth at Delt a o wedRo y al unpa idde du ct ib le s, the di st ric t co urt d et erm in edth atDelt a o wed Ro y al ov er $ 70 0,0 00 in unpa idde du ct ib le s o n R oyal’s co un te rcl ai m aft er subt ract in g t he in de m

ni fic at io n a m ou ntRo y al owedDelt a u nd er the jury’ s v erd ic t. Bo th parti es th enm ov edforatt orne y ’s fees . The d is tri ctco urt d ecl in edto ass ig n an y att orne y ’s fees . Delt a h as ap pe al edth e jury verd ic t an d t he de ni al of i ts m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees . Royal h as cro ss -ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f it s m ot io n fo r it s at to rn ey s fe es , andha s al le ge d e rro r in th e p res en ta ti on of t he in de m ni fic at io n i ss ue to th e jury. 4STANDARD OF REVIEW

W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on reg ard in g t he awardof a tt orne y ’s fees fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, “ rev is it in g que st io ns of l aw de no vo an d re vi ewin g subs id ia ry

fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r.” Atl an taJo urna l & Co ns ti tu ti on v. Ci ty of Atl an taDep’t o f Avi at io n, 4 42 F.3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Reg ard in g Del ta ’s all eg at io ns of e rro r attri al , “ [w]e app ly a defe ren ti al st an da rdof r ev ie w to a di st ric t co urt’s jury in st ru ct io ns . If th e in st ru ct io ns accu rat el y

refl ectth e la w, th e tr ia l ju dg e is gi ve n wi de di sc ret io n a s t o the st y le an d
wor di ng .” Wrig htv. CS X Trans po rt. In c., 37 5 F .3d12 52 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Fu rth erm or e, “ [w]e will no t d is tu rb a jury’ s v erd ic t u nl es s t he ch arg e, take n a s a who le , is erro ne ou s an d p reju di ci al .” Mo sh er v . Spe ed st ar Di v. o f AMCA In t’l, 97 9 F .2d82 3, 8 24 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). DISCUSS ION A. Atto rn ey ’s Fees Afte r tr ia l, Del taan d R oyal b ot h m ov edforatt orne y ’s fees , each cla im in g t o be th e p rev ai li ng pa rty in t he su it . Delt a m ov edfor att orne y ’s fees pu rs ua ntto Fla
. St at . § 6 27 .42 8( 1)
. Delt a arg ue d i t re cei ve d ju dg m en t fo r pu rp os es of § 1 Fla. Stat. § 627.428(1) provides: “Upon the rendition of a judgment or dec ree by 1 any of the c ourts of this state ag ainst an insurer and in favor of a

ny named or omnibus insured or the named be nefic iary

under a policy or contra ct executed by

the insurer , the trial cour t or, in the 562 7.4 28 (1 ) be cau se Delt a p rev ai le d i n i ts cla im forde cl arat ory

jud gm en t tha t Ro y al
owe d Del taa du ty to d efen d, an d b ecau se Delt a p rev ai le d o n i nd em ni fic at io n fo r se tt le m en t co st s i n o ne of t he th irt y -s ix un de rlyin g s ui ts . Royal m ov edfor at to rn ey ’s fees pu rs ua ntto a pr ov is io n i n t he fir stRo y al Pri m ary po li cy be twee n Delt a an d R oyal, whi ch pro vi de d fo r atto rn ey ’s fees if R oyal was requi redto tak e act io n t o s eekpa ym en t o f de du ct ib le s o wedby D el ta , be cau se Ro y al su ccee de d i n 2 it s co un te r-cl ai m

ag ai ns t Del taforunpa idde du ct ib le s. The di stric t co urt h el d tha t b ot h p art ie s wo ul d b e en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees
un de r th ei r res pe ct iv e th eo rie s. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d, h owe ve r, th atth e fee s owe d t o e ach si de co ul d n otbe si gn ifi can t. The di st ric t co urt al so de te rm in edth at th e at to rn ey ’s fees wou ldres ul t i n a“ was h,” an d n ei th er p arty co ul d t ru ly be de em ed“pr ev ai li ng ” fo r th e p ur po se of a ward in g a tt orne y ’s fees . The d is tri ctco urt
acco rd in gl y

de cl in edto gra ntatt orne y ’s fees to eit he r pa rty. Both p art ie s ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n a ndsee k a tt orne y ’s fees fro m th is Co urt.
event of an appe al in which the insure d or bene ficiar y preva ils, the appellate c ourt shall adjudg e or dec ree ag ainst the insurer a nd in favor of

the insured or

benef iciary a re asonable sum as fee s or compensation for the insured’ s or bene ficiar y ’s attorne y

prosec uting the suit in which the rec overy is had.” The provision in the first Royal Primary policy providingfor attorney ’s fe es 2 states: “I f you do not promptly reimburse us for a

ny deductible amount, then any cost incurr ed by us in collection of the de ductible amount will be adde d and applied in a ddition to the applica ble deductible amount without l imitation. These costs include, but ar e not limited to, collection ag ency fee s, attorney ’s fe es and inter est.” 61. Publ ic Po li cy Argu m en t Delt a arg ue s t ha t the di stric t co urt erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de d t ha t Ro y al co ul d be en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees . Delt a arg ue s t ha t the att orne y ’s fees pro vi si on of t he fir stRo y al Pri m ary po li cy vi ol at es Flo rid a p ub li c p ol ic y refl ect edin Fla . Sta t. § 62 7.4 28 . Acco rd in gl y , Delt a arg ue s t ha t t he att orne y ’s fees pro vi si on in th e fi rs t Ro y al Pri m ary po li cy

sh ou ldbe de cl aredin va li d. If Delt a were c orrectinth is arg um en t, Del tawou ldth enrece iv e at to rn ey ’s fees be cau se th ere wo ul d n o l on ge r be anen ti tl em en t t o a tt orne y ’s fees by Roy al to “was h” Delt a’s en ti tl em en t t o at to rn ey ’s fees
. Delt a’s arg um en t tha t the att orne y ’s fees pro vi si on of the fir stRo y al Pri m ary po li cy vi ol at es Flo rid a p ub li c p ol ic y is pre m is edup on th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s st at em en t t ha t “ th e p ur

po se of t hi s p ro vi si on [§ 6 27 .42 8] is to lev el th e p la y in g fie ldso th atth e eco no m ic po wer o f in su ran ce co m pa ni es is no t s o o ve rwh el m in g th atin jus ti ce m ay

be en co ur ag edbe cau se pe op le wil l n otha ve th e n eces sa ry m ean s to see k re dr es s i n t he co urts .” Iv ey v. Al ls ta te Ins . Co., 7 74 So . 2d67 9, 6 84 (Fl a. 20 00 ). The s ta tu te ha s b eende cl areda “ on e-way stre et ,” Dan is Indus . Cor p. v . Gro un d Impro ve m en t Tec hn ique s, In c., 64 5 S o. 2 d 4 20 , 42 1 (F la . 19 94 ), an d in su rers m ay

no t co ll ectatt orne y ’s fees un de r § 6 27 .42 8. Id . Acco rd in g t o Del ta , if in su rers are al lo wedto pl ace f ee p ro vi si on s i n i ns ur an ce p ol ic ie s al lo win g fo r

7in su rers to see k a tt orne y ’s fees , th enth e n on -rec ip ro cal fee s ta tu te of § 62 7.4 28

wou ldbe ren de redim

po te nt , andby im

pl ic at io n t he pu rp os e o f le ve li ng th e p la y in g fie ldwou ldbe un de rm in ed
. Delt a is in co rrec t tha t the pro vi si on co nc ern in g a tt orne y ’s fees inth e fi rs t Ro y al Pri m ary po li cy

is ag ai ns t p ub li c p ol ic y . W e n eedno t, an d d o n ot , exp res s an op in io n a s t o wh ethe r itwou ldvi ol at e Fl or id a p ub li c p ol ic y foranin su ran ce p ol ic y to pro vi de forfees for

th e in su rer a ny tim e th atanin su redsu es th e in su rer a nd lo se s. Th e in st an t p ol ic y pro vi si on do es no t al lo w th e in su rer t o c ol le ctatt orne y ’s fees when ev er the in su redlo se s a l it ig at edcas e o n acla im forco ve rag e. In st ead , th e p ro vi si on ap pl ie s o nl y wher e th e in su rer m

us t s ue th e in su redin ord er t o c ol le ct a d educ ti bl e th atth e in su redwas o bl ig at edto pa y an d fa il edto pay . In co nt ras t, § 62 7.4 28 ad dr es se s t he co nc ern th atin su rers wil l co nt es t v al idcla im s b y th ei r in su red s, an d t ha t i ns ur ed s wi ll be for cedto tak e le ga l ac ti on to see k p aym en t. Dan is Indus ., 64 5 S o. 2 d a t 4 21 . W e h ol d t ha t t hi s l im it edpro vi si on in th e fi rs t Ro y al Pri m ary po li cy

do es no t v io la te th e p ub li c p ol ic y ex pr es se d i n § 62 7.4 28 be cau se th e in st an t i ns ur an ce co nt ractpro vi si on do es no t p ert ai n t o t he is su e co nt em pl at edby § 62 7.4 28 . There fo re, i t was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e di st ric t co urt t o fi ndth atRo y al was e nt it le d t o a tt orne y ’s fees un de r th e te rm s o f th e in su ran ce co nt ractfor th e am ou nt s ex pe nd edin see ki ng th e p aym en t o f

8de du ct ib le s o wed
. 3 2. Di st ric t Co urt’s Ord er Den y in g At to rn ey ’s Fees Bo th pa rti es ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t the att orne y ’s fees in cu rredby eith er s id e in earn in g t he ir r es pe ct iv e v ic to rie s co ul d n otha ve be en si gn ifi can t, an d t ha t the am ou nt s o wedwou ldres ul t i n a“was h.” The d is tri ctco urt
es se nt ia ll y

pe rcei ve d t he cas e as in vo lv in g t wo m ajoris su es . The fi rs t was whet he r Ro y al oweda du ty to p ro vi de a fu ll an d c om pl et e d efen se as am at te r of in su ran ce po li cy in te rp ret at io n. Del tapre va il edon th is is su e as a m at te r of law. Th e se co nd
m ajoris su e was whet he r Del takn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly eng ag edin de fen se co st sh ari ng . Royal p rev ai le d o n t hi s i ss ue be fo re the jury. The d is tri ctco urt ap pa ren tl y as su m edth atm os t o f th e at to rn ey ti m e was ex pe nd edonth es e two is su es , andth us Delt a’s en ti tl em en t t o fe es forwin ni ng th e p ol ic y in te rp ret at io n i ss ue was di sc ou nt edby its lo ss on th e co st -s ha rin g i ss ue . Flo rid a la w all ows th e d is tri ct
co urt t o d is co un t Del ta ’s ent it le m en t t o a tt orne y ’s fees un de r § 6 27 .42 8 b as edon th e fac t tha t Del talo ston th e se co ndm ajoris su e in th e cas e. See Dan is Indus ., 64 5 So . 2dat 4 21 (“ [T]he tr ia l co urt, i n d et erm in in g t he fee award , m ay tak e in to
acco un t the factth atth e in su redor b en efi ci ary ha s n otpre va il edon all is su es . . .”).

Delta’ s reque st that this C ourt ce rtify a question to the F lorida Supreme Court is 3 acc ording ly

DENI ED. 9The refo re, an y fees to whi ch Delt a wou ldha ve be enen ti tl edwou ldno t h av e b een si gn ifi can t. Fu rth erm or e, th e d is tri ctco urt p oi nt edou t t ha t t he de du ct ib le is su e, on whi ch Ro y al pre va il ed , andth e o nl y is su e wit h re sp ectto whi ch Ro y al was e nt it le d t o at to rn ey ’s fees , “ was st ip ul at edan d n otreal ly at is su e in th e cas e.” The refo re, an y fees to whi ch Ro y al wou ldhave be enen ti tl edals o wo ul d n otha ve be ensi gn ifi can t. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t t he fees to whi ch Delt a wou ldha ve be enen ti tl ed
an d t he fees to whi ch Ro y al wou ldha ve be enen ti tl edwou ld“ was h” ou t. We
can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f acton th is is su e are cle arl y erro ne ou s o r th atit s d eci si on is anab us e o f di sc ret io n. At lant a Jo urna l & Co ns ti tu ti on , 44 2 F .3dat 1 28 7. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on no t t o a wardatt orne y ’s fees to eit he r party. T hu s, we re ject Del ta ’s arg um en t i n i ts ap pe al , andwe rejectRo y al ’s arg um en t i n i ts cro ss -ap pe al
. B. Ju ry Ins tru ct io ns 1. Bu rd enof P ro of Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d, as a m at te r of law, tha t Ro y al ha d t he du ty to pro vi de a co m

pl et e d efen se to Delt a, Ro y al th enha d t he bu rd enof p ro vi ng th at Delt a h aden te redin to th e co st -s ha rin g a gr eem en ts kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly in
or de r to alt er Ro y al ’s du ty to d efen d Del ta . Delt a arg ue s t ha t t he jury in st ru ct io ns 10erro ne ou sl y

sh ift edfro m

Ro y al to Delt a th e b ur de n o f pr oo f on th e is su e o f whe th er th e co st -s ha rin g a gr eem en ts were kno win g a ndvo lunt ary. Delt a ch al le ng es th e fo ll owi ng lan gu ag e fro m

th e jury ins tru ct io ns : “ It i s Del ta ’s bu rd ento de m on st rat e th atth e co st -s ha re ag reem en ts were co erce d o r m ad e u nd er dur es s, an d n ot kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly ent eredin to .” Whi le th is in stru ct io n p ro babl y was in te nd edto say on ly tha t Del taha d t he bu rd enof p ro of on co erci on , we ent ert ai n th e p os si bi li ty tha t the jury m ay ha ve readitto im

pl y th atDelt a al so ha d t he bu rd en of pro of with re sp ectto whet he r Del takn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly ent eredin to th e co st -s ha rin g a gr eem en t. We ass um e arg ue nd o, t he refo re, tha t t he in st ru ct io n was erro ne ou s. Nev erthe le ss , we con cl ud e th atth e in st ru ct io n was harm le ss be cau se it
was cle ar fro m

th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l t ha t t he co st -s ha rin g a gr eem en ts were en te redin to vo lu nt ari ly. Sig ni fic an tl y , Delt a m ad e o nl y two arg um en ts at t ria l t o in di cat e th atth e ag reem en ts were n otactua ll y kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry : fi rs t t ha t Delt a was m is le d b y

Ro y al ’s mis rep res en ta ti on s (i .e. si le nc e in th e fac e o f a dut y to sp eak ), an d s eco ndth atDelt a was co erce d i nt o c on ti nu in g t he ag reem en ts . Delt a co nc ed edat o ral arg um en t tha t i t b or e th e b ur de n o f pr oo f wit h re sp ectto bo th of th os e arg um en ts . Acco rd in gl y , eve n i f th e ch al le ng edin st ru ct io n e rro ne ou sl y im pl ie d t ha t Del taha d t he bu rd enof p ro of on kn owl ed ge an d v ol un ta rin es s, i t was ha rm le ss erro r. 112. Co ns id erat io n

Delt a al so arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o g iv e anin st ru ct io n on whet he r th ere was ad equa te co ns id erat io n t o s up po rt t he co st -s ha rin g ag reem en ts be twee n Del taan d R oyal. Co ns id erat io n i s o nl y requi redto ris e to th e le ve l o f a p ep pe rco rn . See As hb y v. As hb y , 65 1 S o. 2 d 2 46 , 24 7 (F la . Dis t. Ct
. App . 19 95 ) (“ It i s ax io m at ic th ata pr om is e, no m at te r ho w sl ig ht , canco ns ti tu te
su ffi ci en t co ns id erat io n s o l on g a s a p arty ag rees to do so m ethi ng th atth ey are n ot bo un d t o d o” ). Inth is cas e, th ere was ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f co ns id erat io n i n th e fac t tha t Ro y al forbo re fro m fil in g ade cl arat ory

jud gm en t ac ti on to res ol ve th e di sp ut edis su e o f whe th er Ro y al oweda du ty to p ro vi de a fu ll an d c om pl et e d efen se wit ho utco stsh ari ng . See Ci ti ba nkInt ’l v. Me rco gl iano , 57 4 S o. 2 d 1 19 0, 1 19 1 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 91 ) (“ It i s wel l s et tl edFlo rid a law th atforbe aran ce fr om pu rs ui ng a le ga l re m edy , wher e th e p ro m is ee h as a bo nafid e b el ie f th ata vi ab le le ga l ri gh t ex is ts , con st itut es va li d c on si de rat io n fo r anag reem en t wh ic h b en efi ts th e p ro m is or ”); Baro n Oi l Co . v. Nat io nwi de Mu t. Fi re In s. Co ., 47 0 S o. 2 d 8 10 , 81 5 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 85 ) (“ An i ns ur er o bv io us ly can h av e th e co urt d et erm in e it s o bl ig at io n t o d efen d b y fil in g ade cl arat ory

jud gm en t ac ti on ”). Alt ern at iv el y , th ere was ob vi ou s co ns id erat io n fo r th e co st -s ha rin g a gr eem en ts in th atth ey res ol ve d t he di sp ut edan d u nc ert ai n l eg al is su e o f whe th er Ro y al was re qu ire d t o 12pr ov id e Del tawith aco m pl et e d efen se un de r Fl or id a la w. There fo re, an y erro r of th e d is tri ctco urt i n n otin stru ct in g t he jury on co ns id erat io n was ha rm le ss . 4 C. Ro y al ’s Cha ll en ge to th e In de m ni fic at io n Is su e Init s cr os s- ap pe al , Royal co nt en ds th atth e co urt s ho ul d n otha ve pe rm it te d Delt a to bri ng it s cl ai m s fo r in de m ni ty to tria l b ecau se in de m ni ty w as no t p le d a nd be cau se itwas n otin cl ud edin th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Del tain cl ud ed it s cl ai m forin de m

ni ty in the joi ntpre tri al st ip ul at io n t ha t was ad op te d b y th e di st ric t co urt i n i ts pre tri al ord er. The pre tri al ord er s up ers ed es th e p le ad in gs . Ja ck so n v . Seab oa rdCo as t Li ne R.R. Co ., 67 8 F .2d99 2, 1 01 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2)
. The refo re, the pre tri al ord er ad de d t he is su e o f in de m ni fic at io n t o t he is su es to be tri ed , andRo y al was o n n ot ic e th atin de m ni fic at io n wo ul d b e tr ie d. Acc or di ng ly, Ro y al ’s arg um en t o n t hi s i ss ue is reject ed
. CONCLUSION Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t i s af firm edin all
res pe ct s. AFFIR MED

The other

arguments on appea l by

Delta, includingits further c halleng es to the 4 jury instructions, its challeng e to the district cour t’s supplemental instruction, and its challeng e to the introduction of evide nce, a re r ejec ted without need f or fur ther discussion. 13