FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 10, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 89 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cv -6 06 13 -ASG CHRIS TOPHER MARLER,

Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt ,

ve rs us U-STORE-IT MI NI WAREHOUSE CO., a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, USI LIMI TED PARTNERSHIP, a fo rei gn li m it edpa rtn ers hi p, a.k .a. U-Sto re-I t, L.P., f.k.a . Acqu ip ort/ Am sd el l I Li m it edPart ne rs hi p, U-STORE-IT-TRUST, a Decl arat io n o f Tru st , YSI MANAGEMENT, LLC, a fo rei gn li m it edli ab il it y co m pa ny, ACQUIPORT/ AMSDELL I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 10 , 20 11 ) Befo re BLACK, WILSON andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ch ris to ph er Ma rle r ap pe al s t he su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of U-Sto re-I t Mi ni W areh ou se Co m

pa ny, U SI Lim it edPart ne rs hi p, U-St or e-It -Tru st , YSI Man ag em en t, LLC, an d the Acqu ip ort/ Am sd el l I Li m it edPartne rs hi p (c ol le ct iv el y

“ U-St or e-It ”). Mar le r st or edth ree s erv ic e truc ks inwareh ou se sp ace t ha t h is
co m pa ny, FleetServ ic e Sp eci al is t, In c., lea se d fr om YSI Man ag em en t an d was
own edby U -St or e-It . Marl er was in jure d a t t he lea se d s pa ce wh il e rep ai rin g o ne of hi s s erv ic e truc ks , andhe co m pl ai ne d tha t U-St or e-Itha d a ct edne gl ig en tl y by fai li ng to m ai nt ai n the asp ha ltat i ts faci li ty. The d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t an ex cu lp at ory

claus e in th e le as e in su la te d U-S to re-I t fr om li ab il it y . W e aff

irm. Mar le r si gn edth e le as e an d, i n p arag rap h 1 9, “ ackno wled ge [d ] th atne it he r [U-St or e-It ] no r [YSI M an ag em en t] [ha d] m ad e an y rep res en ta ti on s o r warra nt ie s, ei th er ex pr es s o r im

pl ie d, as to th e sa fet y

of t he pro pe rty, the Sp ace [ or ] 2ot he rwis e.” In th e sa m e p arag rap h, M arl er ag reedth atne it he r U-St or e-Itor YSI

Man ag em en t wo ul d b e li ab le for “pe rs on al in

jury or lo ss or d am ag e to an y Pers on al Pro pe rty” cau se d b y an y in te nt io na l o r ne gl ig en t ac t o r omiss io n: Neit he r [U-St or e-It ] no r [YSI Man ag em en t] sh al l be li ab le to Occupa nt or an y ot he r pa rty fo r pe rs on al in jury or lo ss or da m ag e to an y Pers on al Pro pe rty ari si ng fro m an y cau se wha ts oe ve r . . . r eg ard le ss of whe th er su ch lo ss or d am ag e is cau se d by th e in te nt io na l or ne gl ig en t act s or om is si on s of [U-St or e-It -], [YSI Man ag em en t], [U-St or e-I t]’ s or [YSI Man ag em en t]’ s ag en ts , Occupa ntor a ny oth er p art y . Para gr ap h 6 of t he lea se pro hi bi te d o ccupa nt s fr om “pa rk [in g] an y

ve hi cl e atth e Pro pe rty . . . exc ep t i n a reas de si gn at edby [U-Sto re-I t] andth enon ly dur in g s uc h pe rio ds ne ces sa ry

forth e p erfo rm an ce o f an d wh il e Occupa ntis ex erci si ng it s rig ht s, dut ie s an d o bl ig at io ns he reu nd er,” an d p arag rap h 9 of t he lea se pro hi bi te d
oc cupant s fr om

“pe rfo rm [in g] an y

m ech an ic al or r es to rat io n wo rkon an y ve hi cl e ei th er i n t he Sp ace o r atth e Pro pe rty.” Whi le Marl er was rep ai rin g o ne of h is servi ce t ru ck s atth e wareh ou se , so m e as ph al t u nd er t he tru ck

cru m bl ed , andth e truc k c ru sh edMarl er’s ri gh t arm . Mar le r fi le d aco m

pl ai ntin a Fl or id a co urt an d a ll eg edth atU-Sto re-I t h adact ed
ne gl ig en tl y

by fail in g t o m ai nt ai n t he asp ha ltin a sa fe co nd it io n o r warn Marl er th atth e as ph al t was un sa fe. Afte r U-St or e-Itrem ov edth e act io n t o d is tri ctco urt, U-St or e-Itm ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t o n t he gro un ds th atitwas re li ev edof

3li ab il it y

un de r th e ex cu lp at ory

claus e in parag rap h 1 4 o f th e le as e; Marl er h ad br each edPara gr ap h 9 of t he lea se , whi ch pro hi bi te d re pa iri ng ve hi cl es at t he wareh ou se ; an d U-S to re-I t d idno t b reac h adu ty owedto Marl er. Mar le r res po nd edth atU-Sto re-I t h advi ol at edth e Fl or id a Bu il di ng Co de an d t ha t vi ol at io n n ul li fie d the ex cu lp at ory claus e an d U-S to re-I t h adwaiv edit s ri gh t t o en fo rce p arag rap h 9
. The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of U-Sto re-I t. The di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t t he lan gu ag e o f th e ex cu lp at ory claus e was “ su ffi ci en t t o in de m ni fy [U-St or e-It ] ag ai ns t t he ir o wn n eg li ge ntact s” an d “ in su la te d [i t] fro m an y in juri es Marl er s us ta in edon ” th e wareh ou se pro pe rty. In res po ns e to Marl er’s arg um en t t ha t the claus e was no t “ su ffi ci en tl y cle ar an d u ne qu iv oc al to pa ss m us te r un de r Fl or id a la w,” th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d t ha t t he claus e co nt ai ne d

“pr eci se ly the type o f lang ua ge whi ch Flo rid a co urts [ha d] up he ldas s uf fic ie nt ” to

“ in de m ni f[y ]” a part y

“ ag ai ns t i ts own ne gl ig en ce.” Th e d is tri ctco urt al so rul ed th atth ere was no “ ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factas t o wh ethe r [U-St or e-It ] vi ol at edth e Fl or id a Bu il di ng Co de ” b ecau se Marl er an d h is ex pe rt a ckno wled ge d th ere wer e n o wri tt engu id el in es or s ta nd ard s g ov ern in g t he th ic kn es s o f as ph al t
an d, al te rn at iv el y , Marl er fa il edto pro vi de an y au th or it y th ata vi ol at io n wo ul d in va li da te th e ex cu lp at ory claus e. The d is tri ctco urt d ecl in edto “ co ns id er wh ethe r

4Mar le r [was ] owe d a ny du ty of care be cau se he vi ol at ed ” p arag rap h 9 , “whe th er

[U-St or e-It ] waiv ed[it s] rig htto en fo rce” th e p ro vi si on , or wh ethe r U-St or e-It br each eda du ty owedto Marl er “ [b ]ecaus e th e ex cu lp at ory claus e [was ] va li d”
an d “ in su la te [d ] [U-St or e-It ] fro m su itforan y

pe rs on al in

juri es oc cu rri ng on th e pr op erty .” The co nt ractst at es in “ cl ear a ndun equi vo cal term s” th atU-Sto re-I t s ha ll be in de m ni fie d a ga in stit s o wn n eg li ge nc e. Eti ol e In te rn ., N.V. v. Mi am i El ev at or Co ., Inc ., 57 3 S o. 2 d 9 21 , 92 2 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 90 ). Marl er ar gu es th atth e ph ras e “ cau se d b y

th e in te nt io na l o r ne gl ig en t ac ts or o m is si on ” m od ifi es on ly the pr eced in g c laus e “ lo ss or d am ag e” an d d oe s n otap pl y to “pe rs on al in

juri es ,” bu t we di sa gr ee. “ [T]he d oc tri ne of t he las t an te ced en t i s n otanab so lu te rul e,” Pen zer v. Tran sp . Ins . Co., 2 9 S o. 3 d 1 00 0, 1 00 7 (F la . 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Hay es , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 07 9, 1 08 6 (2 00 9) , andFo rtu ne Ins . Co. v . Dep’t o f In s., 6 64 So
. 2d31 2, 3 16 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 95 )), an d “ ‘is n otap pl ic ab le wher e a fu rth er ex te ns io n o r in cl us io n i s cl earl y requi redby the in te ntan d m ean in g o f th e co nt ex t’” of

th e co ntract , Fortu ne Ins ., 66 4 S o. 2 d a t 3 16 (qu ot in g 7 3 Am . Ju r. 2d St atut es § 1 38 ). If a “pl ai n re ad in g o f th e la ng ua ge ,” Pen zer, 2 9 S o. 3 d a t 1 00 7,
rev eal s t ha t “ ‘sev eral word s ar e fo ll owe d b y a cl au se whi chis ap pl ic ab le as m uc h to th e fi rs t an d o th er wo rd s as to th e la st , th e n atur al co ns tru ct io n o f th e lang ua ge 5de m an ds th atth e cl au se be readas app li cab le to all .’ ” Fo rtu ne Ins ., 66 4 S o. 2 d a t

31 6 (q uo ti ng Po rto Ric o Ry ., Ligh t & Po wer Co . v. Mo r, 25 3 U.S. 3 45 , 34 8, 4 0 S
. Ct . 51 6, 5 18 (19 20 )). The ex cu lp at ory claus e st at es th atU-Sto re-I t i s i ns ul at ed fro m li ab il it y for“ su chlo ss or d am ag e,” wh ic h i nc lu de s “ pe rs on al in juri es ,” th at ha ve be encau se d b y

it s “ ne gl ig en t ac ts or o m is si on s.” Se e Winn Dix ie Sto res , In c. v. D & J Co ns t. Co ., 63 3 S o. 2 d 6 5, 6 5– 66 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 94 ) (in te rp ret in g i nd em

ni ty agree m en t t ha t co ve red“ an y cla im or l os s . . . no twi th st an di ng su chacci de ntor d am ag e m ay ha ve be encau se d i n wh ol e o r in pa rt [ by the ] ne gl ig en ce o f” Winn Dix ie in su la te d i t ag ai ns t l iabi li ty for p ers on al in jury to an em

pl oyee of D& J C on st ru ct io n) . The ex cu lp at ory claus e ab so lv es USt or e-Itof l iabi li ty for an y ne gl ig en ce tha t m ig htha ve cau se d M arl er’s p ers on al in jury.W e AFFIRM th e su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of U-Sto re-I t.

6