### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT N ovembe r 29 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1472 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 02 23 6- CV-AJ TAURUS HOLDINGS, INC., TAURUS INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES FIDELITY AND G UARANTY COMPANY, PACIF IC INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED NA TIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREM AN'S FUND INS.,
Defen da nt s- App el le es ,

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 29, 200 5)2

Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. FA Y, Circuit Judge: Tau ru s i s i n t he bu si ne ss of m an uf act ur in g, s el li ng an d d is tri bu ti ng fir earm s. A group of m

unicipalit ies have sued Taurus and other handgun m anufacturer s
se ek ing c om

pe nsa tio n f

or e xpe nse s a lle ge dly

r es ult ing f

ro m gunvio le nc e w ith in the ir c om m uni tie s. T auru s, in tur

n, f ile d th is d ec larator

y a ct iona ga ins t a

gr oup of ins ur an ce c om

panie s se ek ing c ontri but ion s f ro m the m to co ve r the c ost

of defending th e suits. T he district court found th at the “ products-com pleted operations hazard” provision excluded coverage. Be ca use w e w er e fa ce d w itha n im portant que sti on o f Fl or ida laww he re no bin din g pr ec ed en t w as pr es en t, w e de ci de d to se ek the gui da nc e of

the F lor ida Suprem e Court before rea ching ou r decision. O n April 29, 2004, w e issued an opin ion in this case in which w e asked the Florida Suprem e Court to answer a certifie d questio n regarding the interpretation of Florida Law c oncerning whether
com m ercia l liabilitypolicies exclude coverage for law suits that several
m unicipalit ies have filed against a gun m anufacturer . T he fac ts in thi s case ar e set fo rth in ou r or ig in al op in io n i n Tau ru s Ho ld in gs , Inc . v. U.S. Fid . & Gua r. Co ., 367 F. 3d 1 252 (1 1 Ci r. 2004 ). T he que sti on w as a s f oll ow s: thWe are g rate ful to the Supreme Court of F lorida for its assistance. 1 3 DOES A "PRODUCTS-C OMPLETED OPERATIONS HAZA RD" EXCLUSION IN A COMMER CIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY OF INSURANCE BAR COVERAGE AND T HEREFORE ELIMINATE AN INSURER'S DUTY TO DEFEND TH E INSURED GUN MANUFACTURER IN SUITS ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISI ON, NEG LIGENT MARKETING, NEGLIGENT DISTRIBUTION, NEGLIGENT ADVERTISING, NEGL IGENT ENTRUSTMENT, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NUISANCE, FAILURE TO WARN, FALSE ADVERTISING, AND UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRA CT ICE S BA SE D O N T HE IN SU RE D' S O N- PRE MISE S BU SIN ES S PRA CT ICE S. In its response, the Florida Suprem e Court answe red in the aff irm ative, hol din g th at

the board

langua ge in the pol ic ie s e xc lud ing f ro m c ove ra ge “ al l bodi ly inj ur y a nd p ro pe rty

da m ag e oc curr ing aw ay

f ro m pr em ise s y ou o w n or

r en t arising out of y our product” excludes cov erage for these law suits . T he court
co nc lud ed

that the pr oduc ts- co m

ple te d op er at ion s ha zard

e xc lus ionf

ound in the
co m m er ci al ge ne ra l l ia

bil ity pol ic ie s T auru s purc ha se d e xc lud ed c ove ra ge f

or the cl ai m s r ai se d a ga ins t T auru s inthe und er ly ing sui ts. T he opi nio n of

the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt c anbe f

ound a t T auru s H old ing s v. U .S . F idelity , 30 Fla. L. W eekly S 633 (Fla. 2005 ). The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s AFF IRM ED. 1