[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10704

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-02745-JSM,

Bkcy No. 8:11-bkc-10035-CPM

In Re: NASSER AYYOUB,

 WENDY AYYOUB,

 Debtors.

_____________________________________________________________

TRACI K. STEVENSON, 

Trustee, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CORPORATION OF LLOYD'S, 

CERTAIN SUBSCRIBERS OF CANOPIUS SYNDICATE #4444, 

CANOPIUS MANAGING AGENTS LIMITED, 

CERTAIN SUBSCRIBERS OF HISCOX SYNDICATE #33, 

HISCOX SYNDICATES LIMITED, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Case: 16-10704 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 19, 2016)

Before MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON,* 

District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

In this bankruptcy appeal, Traci Stevenson, as Trustee for the bankruptcy 

estate of Nasser and Wendy Ayyoub, challenges the October 1, 2015 order of the 

bankruptcy court, later affirmed by the district court on February 10, 2016, 

dismissing with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, her second amended 

complaint, which charged, as relevant here, common law breach of insurance 

contract. Stevenson claims that these courts erred because Lloyd’s Corporation 

and its relevant syndicates and subscribers (collectively, the “Insurers”) are 

obligated to provide insurance coverage for claims arising out of the sale of alcohol 

to a minor on February 28, 2008 pursuant to a one-page binder that was issued by 

the Insurers on February 18, 2008. After thorough review and with the benefit of 

oral argument, we affirm for the reasons detailed by the bankruptcy court in its oral 

ruling on September 24, 2015.

 

* Honorable Roger H. Lawson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of 

Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 16-10704 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

As we see it, the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that, under Florida’s 

longstanding common law merger doctrine, the binder merged with the terms and 

conditions of the full insurance policy that was issued on March 6, 2008 (the “2008 

Policy”). Under the common law rule, if a binder was in effect at the time of loss, 

the exclusions in the forthcoming policy could preclude coverage even though the 

policy had not yet been issued. See 1A Couch on Ins. § 13:8. No Florida statute 

clearly and unequivocally departs from this longstanding common law rule. Since 

the binder merges with the 2008 Policy, the terms and conditions of the 2008 

Policy must be applied to the claims arising out of the sale of alcohol on February 

28, 2008.

What’s more, we agree with the bankruptcy court that Stevenson’s claims 

are barred by collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel is a judicially created doctrine 

that prevents identical parties from relitigating the same issues that have already 

been decided. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372, 374 (Fla. 1977). 

The central issue in this case – whether the Insurers owe coverage under the terms 

of the 2008 Policy – was already decided in a 2010 declaratory judgment action, 

where the district court earlier held that, under the terms of the 2008 Policy, the 

Insurers had no obligation to defend or indemnify the debtors or their employees 

based on the liquor liability exclusion contained in the Policy. [DE 69 Ex. R.] 

Stevenson is not entitled to another bite at that apple.

Case: 16-10704 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10704 Date Filed: 09/19/2016 Page: 4 of 4