[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19-13535

____________________

DIAGNOSTIC LEASING, INC., 

a Florida Corporation, for itself and as the 

assignee of Blocker Transfer Company, a Florida Corporation 

d.b.a. Blocker Transfer and Storage Co., Inc., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORPORATION, 

a California Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee.

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 1 of 19
2 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cv-00958-CEH-TGW

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

LUCK, Circuit Judge:

The district court granted summary judgment for Associated Indemnity Corp. on Diagnostic Leasing, Inc.’s bad faith

claims. After oral argument and careful review of the record, we 

affirm. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 

The Fire

Blocker Transfer & Storage Co. “operated various warehouse storage facilities” that it owned or leased “as part of its business as a moving and storage company.” Diagnostic Leasing was

an equipment rental and leasing company. In 1995, Blocker 

1 Because Diagnostic Leasing—the nonmoving party—appeals the district 

court’s summary judgment for Associated Indemnity, we discuss the facts in 

the light most favorable to Diagnostic Leasing. See Cowen v. Ga. Sec’y of 

State, 960 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 2020) (“In reviewing the propriety of summary judgment, ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.’” (citation omitted)).

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 2 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 3

Storage stored Diagnostic Leasing’s computerized tomography

(CT) scanner. Associated Indemnity insured Blocker Storage under the trade name “Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company.” Fireman’s Fund was also “a separate legal incorporated entity that was 

authorized to transact business and issue policies,” and Fireman’s 

Fund and Associated Indemnity were two separate companies under the umbrella of Allianz Global. 

That same year, two fires at Blocker Storage’s warehouses

damaged Diagnostic Leasing’s CT scanner. After the first fire, 

Blocker Storage informed Associated Indemnity about the damage 

to the CT scanner. Fireman’s Fund promptly assigned the claim to 

an independent insurance adjuster. Meanwhile, Diagnostic Leasing sent a demand letter to Blocker Storage requesting that Blocker 

Storage settle the matter within thirty days for the replacement 

cost of the CT scanner—$263,000. Diagnostic Leasing also requested the name of any insurer with whom Blocker Storage or the 

warehouse had coverage and the details of any applicable insurance 

policies. 

Fireman’s Fund responded to Diagnostic Leasing’s demand 

letter with a certified copy of the insurance policy “issued” and 

“provided by” Associated Indemnity but did not address Diagnostic

Leasing’s settlement demand. Fireman’s Fund then informed 

Blocker Storage that the coverage limit for Diagnostic Leasing’s insurance claim was $100,000 and that “Fireman’s Fund [] decided to 

make available to Blocker [Storage]” the full $100,000 to use at 

Blocker Storage’s discretion. Fireman’s Fund advised Blocker

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 3 of 19
4 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

Storage that any settlement in excess of $100,000 would have to be 

paid by Blocker Storage. Blocker Storage maintained that its liability was limited to $25,000 based on a contractual provision in the 

bill of lading from when the CT scanner was first moved into storage. 

After the second fire, Diagnostic Leasing sent a second demand letter, this time to Fireman’s Fund directly, asserting a higher 

replacement cost for the CT scanner—$427,515. Fireman’s Fund 

advised Blocker Storage that it could not respond to Diagnostic

Leasing on Blocker Storage’s behalf because of Blocker Storage’s 

uninsured exposure in excess of $100,000. Fireman’s Fund suggested to Blocker Storage that the parties engage in a settlement 

conference. In response, Blocker Storage “specifically instructed”

Fireman’s Fund that “it d[id] not want any of its insurance coverage 

tendered” to Diagnostic Leasing because “its maximum liability . . . 

[wa]s $25,000” and “[a] tendering of any amount by the Fireman’s 

Fund directly to [Diagnostic Leasing] m[ight] prejudice Blocker 

[Storage] in enforcing its limitation of liability.” 

In October 1996, Fireman’s Fund contacted Diagnostic Leasing requesting “information regarding the cost of repair and the 

cost to determine the amount of damages to the [CT] scanner and 

replacement cost for the [CT] scanner” as a result of the insurance 

policy that “Fireman’s Fund issued” to Blocker Storage. Fireman’s 

Fund contacted Diagnostic Leasing again, several months later, 

“on behalf of its insured, Blocker [Storage],” to find out “what 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 4 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 5

[Diagnostic Leasing]’s intentions [we]re with regard to the claim it 

made against Blocker [Storage].” 

The Two Lawsuits

In 1999, after years of unsuccessful settlement attempts, Diagnostic Leasing sued Blocker Storage in Florida state court for 

breach of contract, negligent bailment, and spoliation of evidence. 

Fireman’s Fund provided counsel to represent Blocker Storage

alongside Blocker Storage’s independent counsel, although Blocker

Storage’s independent counsel led Blocker Storage’s defense and

made all relevant decisions on Blocker Storage’s behalf. When 

Blocker Storage’s independent counsel passed away, counsel provided by Fireman’s Fund withdrew from Blocker Storage’s representation. Associated Indemnity then provided counsel to represent Blocker Storage. Associated Indemnity repeatedly advised 

Blocker Storage to retain its own independent counsel, but Blocker 

Storage did not do so. 

While litigation against Blocker Storage was pending, 

Blocker Storage sued Fireman’s Fund seeking a declaratory judgment regarding Blocker Storage’s claims under the insurance policy. In 2001, Blocker Storage and Fireman’s Fund executed a “Release of All Claims” to resolve the declaratory judgment lawsuit. 

Blocker Storage and Fireman’s Fund “agree[d] that the limit of liability coverage available, pursuant to the terms and conditions of 

the [p]olicy, for the [first] fire [wa]s $100,000.” In exchange, 

Blocker Storage released “Fireman’s Fund, its employees, adjusters, agents[,] and attorneys” from:

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 5 of 19
6 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

all liabilities identified in Blocker [Storage]’s complaint including, but not limited to, the matter of 

number of occurrences, the matter of the limits of insurance available and the alleged breach of contract. 

This [r]elease includes, but is not limited to, all claims 

for contractual damages, extra-contractual damages, 

“bad[]faith” damages, whether statutory or common 

law, consequential damages, tort damages, attorney 

fees, expert costs, expenses and interest, arising out of 

or related to the allegations in Blocker [Storage]’s 

complaint.

After ten years of litigating the breach of contract, bailment, 

and spoliation case, the state court granted judgment for Diagnostic Leasing against Blocker Storage after a bench trial, finding that 

Blocker Storage’s alleged $25,000 liability limitation was unenforceable and that Blocker Storage owed Diagnostic Leasing 

$451,431.82 plus prejudgment interest ($229,431.82 in lost revenue 

and $222,000 to replace the CT scanner). Diagnostic Leasing, Inc. 

v. Blocker Transfer Co., No. 99-3540 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. Feb. 4, 

2011). Diagnostic Leasing moved to include Fireman’s Fund and 

Associated Indemnity as parties to the final judgment, and Fireman’s Fund, Associated Indemnity, and Diagnostic Leasing negotiated an agreed order to include Associated Indemnity as a party to 

the final judgment and deny Diagnostic Leasing’s motion to include Fireman’s Fund. The state court entered the agreed order,

granting the motion with respect to Associated Indemnity, finding

Associated Indemnity liable to the extent of its $100,000 coverage 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 6 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 7

limit under the insurance policy, and denying the motion with regard to Fireman’s Fund. The state court entered final judgment 

against Blocker Storage for $994,638.37; $100,000 of that amount 

was recoverable from Associated Indemnity per the agreed order. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

In 2015, Blocker Storage assigned its rights under the insurance policy, including any bad faith claims, to Diagnostic Leasing. 

Two and a half months later, Diagnostic Leasing sued Associated 

Indemnity in Florida state court for first party bad faith, as Blocker

Storage’s assignee under the insurance policy, and third party bad 

faith for failing to settle Diagnostic Leasing’s insurance claim 

against Blocker Storage. Diagnostic Leasing alleged that Associated Indemnity:

never attempted in good faith to settle [Diagnostic

Leasing]’s pre-suit claim for the [first] fire loss, or the 

lawsuit filed by [Diagnostic Leasing], for the policy 

limits of liability coverage for third[]party claims under the . . . [p]olicy, when under all the circumstances 

[Associated Indemnity] could have and should have 

done so had it acted fairly and honestly towards its 

insured, Blocker [Storage], and with due regard for its 

interests.

Associated Indemnity removed the case to federal court and 

moved for summary judgment. Associated Indemnity argued that: 

(1) it did not breach its duty of good faith to Blocker Storage; (2) the 

2001 release covered Associated Indemnity as an agent of 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 7 of 19
8 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

Fireman’s Fund and gave up any bad faith claims arising from the 

fires; (3) Diagnostic Leasing was judicially and collaterally estopped 

from relitigating the policy limits; and (4) Diagnostic Leasing could 

not assert bad faith claims because it never made a demand within 

the policy limits. 

The district court granted summary judgment for Associated Indemnity. Although the district court agreed with Diagnostic Leasing that a reasonable jury could find that Associated Indemnity acted in bad faith in investigating the first fire, the district court 

concluded that the 2001 release between Blocker Storage and Fireman’s Fund released Diagnostic Leasing’s bad faith claims. The 

district court found that there was no genuine dispute that Associated Indemnity was an agent of Fireman’s Fund covered by the release because: (1) Fireman’s Fund directed Associated Indemnity

to undertake Blocker Storage’s defense in the underlying litigation; 

(2) “the overwhelming evidence show[ed] that [Fireman’s Fund]

and [Associated Indemnity] operated as one entity with respect to 

the [p]olicy and the claim throughout the process”; and (3) “the 

parties understood there to be one [p]olicy investigated by [Fireman’s Fund] and to be paid by [Associated Indemnity].” 

The district court concluded that the 2001 release was “clear 

and unambiguous, and release[d] [Fireman’s Fund] and its agents—

including [Associated Indemnity]—from any bad faith claim arising 

out of or related to the allegations of Blocker [Storage]’s complaint, 

which included allegations as to the location of the fire and the 

[p]olicy limit.” The district court found that the 2001 release was 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 8 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 9

“extremely broad” and did not preserve Diagnostic Leasing’s bad 

faith claims, and that Diagnostic Leasing’s third party bad faith 

claim was derivative of Associated Indemnity’s first party bad faith 

claim. The district court concluded, “Because Blocker [Storage] released any bad faith claim founded on [Fireman’s Fund]’s coverage 

of the fires at Blocker [Storage]’s warehouse . . . that had accrued 

at the time of the [r]elease, including any claim [regarding the location of] the first fire,” Diagnostic Leasing could not “raise such a 

claim.” 

Diagnostic Leasing moved for relief from the district court’s 

summary judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing that the district 

court overlooked evidence that established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Associated Indemnity was an agent of Fireman’s Fund and covered by the 2001 release. Diagnostic Leasing

also argued that the district court erroneously relied on its failure 

to make a demand within the policy limits to grant summary judgment for Associated Indemnity. 

The district court denied Diagnostic Leasing’s Rule 60(b) 

motion because: (1) Diagnostic Leasing “failed to cite to any evidence that demonstrated [that] the [c]ourt made a mistake in fact 

or law in determining that the undisputed evidence showed that 

[Associated Indemnity] was an agent of [Fireman’s Fund]”; (2) Diagnostic Leasing failed to show “that the [c]ourt incorrectly ruled 

that the [r]elease extinguished any bad faith claim”; and (3) Diagnostic Leasing’s argument as to the demand within policy limits 

depended “on the [r]elease being inapplicable.” Because 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 9 of 19
10 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

Diagnostic Leasing “failed to demonstrate that the [c]ourt made a 

mistake of law or fact regarding the [r]elease, or that other circumstances justif[ied] relief from th[e] [c]ourt’s ruling regarding the 

[r]elease,” the district court concluded that Diagnostic Leasing was 

not entitled to relief from judgment. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

“‘We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

de novo, viewing all facts and drawing all inferences in the light 

most favorable to’ the nonmoving party.” Pelaez v. Gov’t Emps. 

Ins. Co., 13 F.4th 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). 

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence “shows that 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

DISCUSSION 

Diagnostic Leasing argues that the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment for Associated Indemnity on its bad 

faith claims because: (1) there was a genuine dispute of material 

fact as to whether Associated Indemnity was an agent of Fireman’s 

Fund; (2) the 2001 release could not preclude Diagnostic Leasing’s 

third party claims; (3) the 2001 release was the result of a mutual 

mistake about the location of the first fire; and (4) Blocker Storage

and Fireman’s Fund did not intend for the 2001 release to cover 

nonsignors.

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 10 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 11

We disagree. Diagnostic Leasing did not establish a genuine 

dispute as to whether Associated Indemnity was an agent of Fireman’s Fund or as to whether the 2001 release gave up Diagnostic

Leasing’s bad faith claims against Associated Indemnity, and Diagnostic Leasing forfeited its other two arguments by failing to raise 

them below.

Agency

Under Florida law, “[g]enerally, the existence of an agency 

relationship is a question of fact; however, when the moving party 

fails to produce any supportive evidence or when the evidence presented is so unequivocal that reasonable persons could reach but 

one conclusion, that question of fact becomes a question of law to 

be determined by the court.” Marchisio v. Carrington Mortg. 

Servs., LLC, 919 F.3d 1288, 1311 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Hickman 

v. Barclay’s Int’l Realty, Inc., 5 So. 3d 804, 806 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 

2009)). 

“[A]n agency relationship may be express or implied from 

apparent authority, and the burden of proving the agency belongs 

to the party asserting it.” Id. (citation omitted). “The key element 

in establishing actual agency is the control by the principal over the 

actions of the agent.” Id. (quoting Hickman, 5 So. 3d at 806). “And 

it is the right of control, not actual control or descriptive labels employed by the parties, that determines an agency relationship.” Id. 

(quoting Hickman, 5 So. 3d at 806).

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 11 of 19
12 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

Here, “the evidence presented [wa]s so unequivocal that 

reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion”: Associated

Indemnity was Fireman’s Fund’s agent. See id. The summary 

judgment evidence showed that Associated Indemnity and Fireman’s Fund were closely related. Nearly all written communications from Associated Indemnity to Blocker Storage regarding the

fires and settlement were provided on Fireman’s Fund letterhead. 

According to Allianz Global’s insurance adjuster, “Fireman’s Fund 

[and] Associated Indemnity are all companies within Allianz 

Global,” and Fireman’s Fund’s counsel testified that Fireman’s 

Fund and Associated Indemnity “were treated as one and the same 

because it was one contract written by [Associated Indemnity] 

which is an affiliate[] [of] Fireman’s Fund.” 

Diagnostic Leasing and Blocker Storage understood that the 

two companies were closely related. Diagnostic Leasing’s counsel

referred to “Fireman’s Fund” and “Associated Indemnity” “interchangeably” and described Associated Indemnity as “literally the 

same company as Fireman’s Fund.” Blocker Storage agreed that 

Associated Indemnity “was literally the same company as Fireman’s Fund.” And, during litigation against Diagnostic Leasing, 

Blocker Storage’s counsel “abbreviated everything FFIC,” short for 

Fireman’s Fund, because Fireman’s Fund was “a parent company 

of several different entities . . . . Everything was always Fireman’s 

Fund.” 

The summary judgment evidence also showed that Fireman’s Fund had the right to control Associated Indemnity. First, 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 12 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 13

the policy, named “Fireman’s Fund Insurance Policy,” was issued 

by Associated Indemnity on Fireman’s Fund’s behalf. “All parties 

used the generic Fireman’s Fund to refer to this specific [Associated

Indemnity] policy,” and it was Fireman’s Fund, not Associated Indemnity, that promptly assigned Diagnostic Leasing’s insurance 

claim to an independent insurance adjuster and responded to Diagnostic Leasing’s settlement demand with a certified copy of the policy. When Diagnostic Leasing asked Associated Indemnity about 

the policy, it was Fireman’s Fund that answered. 

Second, Fireman’s Fund directed Associated Indemnity to:

(1) defend Blocker Storage in litigation over the policy; and (2) offer 

Blocker Storage the policy limits to settle Diagnostic Leasing’s insurance claim. As the district court explained, “after the lawsuit 

was filed by Diagnostic Leasing against Blocker [Storage], a letter 

with [Fireman’s Fund] letterhead was sent to Blocker[Storage]stating that [Associated Indemnity] received the complaint and would 

provide a defense to Blocker [Storage].” Fireman’s Fund communicated directly with Blocker Storage and indicated that Associated 

Indemnity would provide Blocker Storage’s defense in its litigation 

against Diagnostic Leasing. Fireman’s Fund also communicated 

directly with Blocker Storage that the coverage limit for Diagnostic

Leasing’s insurance claim was $100,000 and that “Fireman’s Fund 

[] decided to make available to Blocker [Storage]” the full $100,000 

to use at Blocker Storage’s discretion. Fireman’s Fund was in control of Associated Indemnity’s response to issues related to the policy. 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 13 of 19
14 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

Third, Fireman’s Fund negotiated the 2001 release on behalf 

of itself and its agents for all claims arising from the policy. Blocker 

Storage released “Fireman’s Fund, its employees, adjusters, 

agents[,] and attorneys” from “all liabilities identified in Blocker

Storage’s complaint,” which sought a declaratory judgment regarding Blocker Storage’s insurance claims under the policy. 

Diagnostic Leasing offered no evidence showing that Fireman’s Fund didn’t control Associated Indemnity. Diagnostic Leasing only argues that Associated Indemnity and Fireman’s Fund 

were separate companies, but that doesn’t tell us if one company 

was the agent of the other. The undisputed evidence showed that 

it was.

Because (1) the policy was issued by Associated Indemnity

on behalf of Fireman’s Fund; (2) Fireman’s Fund directed Associated Indemnity to defend Blocker Storage and offer Blocker Storage the policy limits to settle Diagnostic Leasing’s insurance claim; 

and (3) Fireman’s Fund negotiated the 2001 release to release 

Blocker Storage’s claims arising from the policy; and because Diagnostic Leasing did not rebut the evidence of an agency relationship, 

the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Associated Indemnity on the agency issue. 

Effect of the 2001 Release

Diagnostic Leasing next argues that the district court erred 

in concluding that the 2001 release gave up its third party bad faith 

claim because it was “separate and distinct” from Blocker Storage’s 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 14 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 15

first party bad faith claim. In particular, Diagnostic Leasing argues 

that Associated Indemnity could not have been released in 2001 by 

Blocker Storage because Diagnostic Leasing was not named in the 

2001 release, Blocker Storage was not an agent of Diagnostic Leasing when it signed the 2001 release, and Diagnostic Leasing’s third 

party bad faith claim did not accrue until 2011. 

But, under Florida law, once the insured releases the insurer 

from liability, the insured no longer has a cause of action against 

the insurer and neither does an injured third party. See Fid. & Cas.

Co. of N.Y. v. Cope, 462 So. 2d 459, 461 (Fla. 1985) (“Upon [the 

judgment] being satisfied, [the insured party] no longer had a cause 

of action; if he did not, then [the injured party] did not.”).

The 2001 release was not limited to only those claims that 

existed at the time of the release; it released “all claims

for . . . ‘bad[]faith’ damages, . . . arising out of or related to” Blocker

Storage’s insurance claims under the policy. Any bad faith claims 

against Associated Indemnity related to Blocker Storage’s insurance claims under the policy, so it is irrelevant whether Blocker

Storage was acting as an agent of Diagnostic Leasing when Blocker

Storage signed the release or whether Diagnostic Leasing was 

named in the release. See id. (“[The injured party’s] action was not 

separate and distinct from, but was derivative of[,] [the insured 

party].”).

The Florida Supreme Court has explained that, “absent a 

prior assignment of the cause of action, once an injured party has 

released the tortfeasor from all liability . . . no such [bad faith] 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 15 of 19
16 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

action may be maintained.” Id. at 459. Once Blocker Storage released Associated Indemnity from liability “arising out of or related 

to” Blocker Storage’s insurance claims under the policy, including 

liability for any bad faith, “no such [bad faith] action [could] be 

maintained” by Diagnostic Leasing against Associated Indemnity. 

See id. And Associated Indemnity owed no independent duty of 

good faith to Diagnostic Leasing. See id. at 461 (“We did not extend the duty of good faith by an insurer to its insured to a duty of 

an insurer to a third party.”).

Diagnostic Leasing argues that this result is inconsistent 

with Travelers Insurance Co. v. Perez, 384 So. 2d 971, 973 (Fla. 

Dist. Ct. App. 1980). In Travelers, the Florida Third District Court 

of Appeal concluded that a third party’s “right to bring a direct action for bad faith against the insurer vested in or accrued to [it] at 

the same time [it] became entitled to sue the insured” and, once the 

third party “obtained the right to proceed against the insurer[,] [it]

could not be divested of that right by the actions of the insured or 

insurer without [its] consent.” Id. (citations omitted). 

But Travelers only addressed “the question of whether a release of all claims executed by the insured in favor of the insurer

. . . bars a ‘bad faith’ action against the insurer by [an] injured third 

party” when the release was executed “subsequent to the entry of 

an excess judgment in favor of [the] injured third party.” Id. at 972

(emphasis added). Travelers didn’t address the issue of whether a 

release executed prior to the entry of an excess judgment can relinquish bad faith claims, which is what we have here. Cope

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 16 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 17

answered that question and the Florida Supreme Court’s answer 

binds us here. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Steinberg, 393 

F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2004) (in diversity cases “[o]ur objective 

is to determine the issues of state law as we believe the Florida Supreme Court would”—only “[i]n the absence of definitive guidance 

from the Florida Supreme Court, [do] we follow relevant decisions 

of Florida’s intermediate appellate courts”).

Because the 2001 release preceded the assignment of Blocker

Storage’s claims under the insurance policy and released Associated 

Indemnity of “all claims . . . for ‘bad[]faith’ damages” arising out of 

or related to” Blocker Storage’s insurance claims under the policy, 

the release extinguished Diagnostic Leasing’s claims for bad faith, 

which existed only by virtue of Blocker Storage’s insurance relationship with Associated Indemnity. 

Mutual Mistake

Diagnostic Leasing argues for the first time on appeal that 

the 2001 release is unenforceable because it was based on a mutual 

mistake of fact regarding the location of the May 1995 fire and applicable policy limit. But Diagnostic Leasing “cannot readily complain about the entry of a summary judgment order that did not 

consider an argument [it] chose not to develop for the district court 

at the time of the summary judgment motions.” See Johnson v. 

Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1264 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Because Diagnostic Leasing failed to raise mutual mistake before 

the district court, it forfeited the argument on appeal. See Resol.

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 17 of 19
18 Opinion of the Court 19-13535

Tr. Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 598 (11th Cir. 1995) 

(“Well-settled precedent provides that arguments not raised at the 

district court level will generally not be considered on appeal.”). 

Intention to Cover Nonsignors

Diagnostic Leasing also argues for the first time on appeal

that the 2001 release and Blocker Storage’s and Fireman’s Fund’s 

conduct lacked the necessary “clear manifestation” that the release 

covered nonsignors. Diagnostic Leasing forfeited this argument,

too. See id. But, even if it didn’t, the 2001 release and the parties’ 

conduct exhibited a clear manifestation of intent to cover Associated Indemnity.

The 2001 release gave up any bad faith claims arising out of 

Fireman’s Fund’s investigation and handling of the fires. It used 

broad language that covered “all claims for contractual damages, 

extra-contractual damages, ‘bad[]faith’ damages, . . . arising out of 

or related to the allegations in Blocker [Storage]’s complaint” and 

applied to “Fireman’s Fund, its employees, adjusters, agents[,] and 

attorneys.” The 2001 release also settled the amount of Associated

Indemnity’s liability under its insurance policy issued to Blocker

Storage and referenced the underlying litigation between Blocker 

Storage and Diagnostic Leasing where Associated Indemnity was 

the insurer and funded Blocker Storage’s defense. And Blocker

Storage and Fireman’s Fund’s shared understanding that Associated Indemnity and Fireman’s Fund were one and the same in the 

context of the policy supported the conclusion that Blocker Storage 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 18 of 19
19-13535 Opinion of the Court 19

and Fireman’s Fund intended to cover Associated Indemnity by the 

2001 release. Diagnostic Leasing does not point to any contrary 

summary judgment evidence. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 19-13535 Date Filed: 06/24/2022 Page: 19 of 19