FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 November 29, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 03-14720

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 01-02236-CV-AJ

TAURUS HOLDINGS, INC., 

TAURUS INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING, INC., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

versus 

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, 

PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, 

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

FIREMAN'S FUND INS., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(November 29, 2005)
2

Before ANDERSON, CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

FAY, Circuit Judge:

Taurus is in the business of manufacturing, selling and distributing firearms. 

A group of municipalities have sued Taurus and other handgun manufacturers

seeking compensation for expenses allegedly resulting from gun violence within

their communities. Taurus, in turn, filed this declaratory action against a group of

insurance companies seeking contributions from them to cover the cost of

defending the suits. The district court found that the “products-completed

operations hazard” provision excluded coverage.

Because we were faced with an important question of Florida law where no

binding precedent was present, we decided to seek the guidance of the Florida

Supreme Court before reaching our decision. On April 29, 2004, we issued an

opinion in this case in which we asked the Florida Supreme Court to answer a

certified question regarding the interpretation of Florida Law concerning whether

commercial liability policies exclude coverage for lawsuits that several

municipalities have filed against a gun manufacturer. The facts in this case are set

forth in our original opinion in Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,

367 F.3d 1252 (11 Cir.2004). The question was as follows: th
We are grateful to the Supreme Court of Florida for its assistance. 1

3

DOES A "PRODUCTS-COMPLETED OPERATIONS HAZARD" EXCLUSION

IN A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY OF INSURANCE BAR

COVERAGE AND THEREFORE ELIMINATE AN INSURER'S DUTY TO

DEFEND THE INSURED GUN MANUFACTURER IN SUITS ALLEGING

NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT MARKETING,

NEGLIGENT DISTRIBUTION, NEGLIGENT ADVERTISING, NEGLIGENT

ENTRUSTMENT, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NUISANCE, FAILURE TO WARN,

FALSE ADVERTISING, AND UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE

PRACTICES BASED ON THE INSURED'S ON-PREMISES BUSINESS

PRACTICES.

In its response, the Florida Supreme Court answered in the affirmative,

holding that the board language in the policies excluding from coverage “all

bodily injury and property damage occurring away from premises you own or rent

arising out of your product” excludes coverage for these lawsuits. The court

concluded that the products-completed operations hazard exclusion found in the

commercial general liability policies Taurus purchased excluded coverage for the

claims raised against Taurus in the underlying suits.

The opinion of the Florida Supreme Court can be found at Taurus Holdings

v. U.S. Fidelity, 30 Fla. L. Weekly S 633 (Fla. 2005).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.1