FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UL Y 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1469 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-80727 -CV -A SG ZURICH AMERI CAN INSURANCE COMP ANY, a Fo re ignc or

por at ion , Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r-Defe nd an t-Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us FRA NKEL EN TE RPRI SE S, a Fo re ignc or

por at ion , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t, N IC H O L A S C. P E D A

N O , a n in div idu al , MA RYB. P E D A

N O , a n in div idu al , D ef en da nts -C ount er -C la im an ts- Appe llants
.

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 18 , 200 8)Be cause this appeal is from a g rant of summar

y judgme nt, we view the evidenc e in the 1 light most favor able to the nonmovingparty . See Gitlitz v. Compag nie Nationale Air F ranc e, 129 F.3d 554, 556 ( 11th Cir. 1997). Acc ording ly , the fa cts as re cited her e ar e viewe d in the light mos t f avo ra ble to a pp e lla nts
. 2 Be fo re A N D E RS O N , MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Frankel Enter

prises (“ Frankel”) and Nicholas and Mary Pedan o (“ Pedanos”) appeal from

the district court’ s grant of summ ary j ud g m en t to Zurich A m erican In sur an ce Co m

pa ny ( “ Z ur ic h” ). B ec au se w e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly he ld that there w as no genui ne issue of m ateri al fac t, such that summ ary j udgm ent was ap pr opr ia te , w e af

fi rm the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. I. F AC TS T he P ed an os p ur ch as ed

ahou se fr om Fr an ke l En te rp ri se s in 1992. T he hou se 1 suf fe re d f ro m r oof le ak s, a nd a lth oughF rank el atte m pte d to r ep ai r the de fe ct s, the le ak s c ont inu ed
. A ft er the hom eo w ne r’ s as soc ia tio n pr es sur e- w as he d th e Pe da nos’
ro of in 2000 , w at er

inf iltra te d th e hous e, a lle ge dly c au sin g pr ope rty

da m ag e an d
m old
. T he Pe da nos fi le d su it ag ai nst F ranke l, a lle gin g th at

his ne gli ge nt c onstru ct ion
an d re pa irs led to th e wat er l eak ag e. Fr an ke l w as li ste d a s an a ddi tio na l i nsur ed on a c om m er ci al ge ne ral lia

bil ity policy issued byZur ich with a $1 m illion each occ urrence policy lim it. F rankelThe policy contained se vera l clauses r eg ardingthe insured’ s obligations in t he eve nt of a 2 laws uit and se ttl e me nt n e g oti a tio ns :
3 notified Zurich of the Pe danos’ lawsu i t , and Zurich re spon ded with a letter
co m m itt ing to pa rt ic ipa te in Fr an ke l’ s de fe nse bu t re se rv ing a ll ri ght s un de r the policy
. Zuric h hired a lawy er, Michael Kr aft (“ Kr aft”) , to def end Frankel . In l at er
co rr es p o n d e n c e , Z u r i c h s t a t e dt h a ti tb e l i e v e ds o m e o f t h e P e d a n o s ’ c l a i m s f

e ll out sid e of the pol ic y co ve ra ge . H ow ev er , Z ur ic h c ont inu ed to pr ovi de F ranke l w ith Kraft as d efen se co un se l. In April 2004, the parties in the Pedanos’ lawsuit participated in court-ordered
m ed ia tio n. P re se nt a t the m ed ia tio n w er e Fr an ke l’ s r ep re se nta tiv e, counse l f or Frankel, Kr aft, the Pe d an o s and the Pedanos’ law y er. A repre sentative for Z urich at te nde d th e m ed ia tio n by pho ne , but

spo ke onl y

w ithK ra ft
. A s a re sul t of

m ed ia tio n, Fr an ke l and the P ed an os r ea ch ed ase ttl em en t of

$1. 8 m ill ion
. U nde r the a gr ee m en t, Fr an ke l w oul d a ssi gn h is i nsur an ce c la im w ithZ ur ic h to the Pe da nos. Z ur ic h di d no t
ex pr es sly c onse nt t o th is s et tle m en t, al th ough K ra ft did not sta te to an y one in the
m ed ia ti on th atZuri ch ob

jecte d t o t he set tl em en t. A ft er the m ed ia tio n, Z ur ic h in fo rm ed F ranke l tha t i t did no t c onsi de r its el f b o u n dt o t h e s et t l emen t b ec au s e Fr an k el h ad en t er ed t h e s et t l emen twi t h o u tZu ri ch ’s
ex pr es s c onse nt. I n A ugus t 20 04, Z ur ic h f ile d ade cl ar at or

y j udgm en t a ct ion , 22. Duties in The Eve nt of Occ urre nce, Claim or Suit. . . . . c. You and a

ny other involved insure d must: . . . 3. cooper ate with us in the investig ation or settlement of the claim or defe nse ag ainst the “suit”; and d. No insured will, except at the insure d’s own cost, voluntarily make a pa y me nt, a ssume an o bli g a tio n, or inc ur any e xpe ns e , o the r t

ha n f or fi rs t a id, wi tho ut o ur

c on se nt. 3. L eg al Actions Ag ainst Us No pe rs on

or or g anizatio n h a s a

ri g ht u nd e r t his Cov e ra g e Part : a. To join us as a par ty or otherw ise bringus into a “suit” askingfor damag es from an insure d; or b. To su e us on

thi s Co ve ra g e Part

un le ss a ll o f i ts t e rm s h ave be e n f ull y complied with. A per son or org anization may sue us to rec over on a

n ag ree d settlement or on a f inal judgme nt ag ainst an insured obta ined af ter a n actua l trial; but we will not be liable for damag es that ar e not payable unde r the ter ms of this Coverag e Part or that are in excess of the applica

ble limit of insurance. A n ag ree d settlement means a settlement and re lease of liability signe d by

us, the insured a

nd the claimant or

the claimant’ s leg al re prese ntative. 4 se ek ing a j udgm en t tha t Z ur ic h w as not boun d by the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t be ca use Frankel had fa iled to ob tain Zurich’ s authorization to enter into the settlem ent. Af ter a period of d iscovery , the district court granted summ ary j udgm ent to Zuric h. F rankel
an d t he Ped an os no w app eal
. II . DISCUSSI ON W e re vie w agr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de n ovo, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the non -m ovi ng p ar ty a nd a ppl y ing the sa m e le ga l st an da rd s as the district court. G itlitz, 1 29 F. 3d at 556. Sum m ary j udgm ent is appropriate when the ple a d i n g s a n d o t h e r e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e of
m at eri al fact an d t ha t t he m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.5

Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c). In t his case, the district court f ound that there w as no genui ne issue of m aterial fa ct r eg ar din g w he the r Z ur ic h c onse nte d to the se ttl em en t, e nti tl in g Zur ic h to j udgm en t a s a m at te r of Fl or ida law . T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s ho ldi ng w as ba se d inlarg e pa rt on o ne of F ranke l’ s r es pons es to Z ur ic h’ s r eque sts fo r adm iss ion
. A ske d to a dm it tha t “ Fr an ke l di d no t obt ai n Z ur ic h’ s au tho ri za tio n to e nte r int o th e Me m or an dum of Set tl em en t re ach eddu rin g t he Apr il 22 , 20 04 m ed ia ti on ,” Fran ke l repl ie d “ ad m it te d.” A s ar es ult , the dis tr ic t co urt he ld, ap pe llants co uld not as se rt tha t the re w as a ge nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t r eg ar din g Z ur ic h’ s c onse nt t o th e se ttl em en t. O n a ppe al , appe llants c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at the re is not a genuin e issu e o f m aterial f act, and also assert that Zuric h shou ld be estopp ed fr o m ar g u i n g t h at Fr an k el wa s n o t a u t h o r i z e dt o en t eri n t o t h e s et t l emen t . We
co ns id er ea ch of t he se arg um en ts in tu rn be lo w. A
. G enuin e Is sue of

Ma te ri al F ac t R eg ar din g Z ur ic h’ s Auth or iz at ion Appe llants a rg ue tha t the re is a ge nu in e is sue of m at er ia l f

ac t r eg ar din g whether Zuric h authorized the settlem en t b ecause the r equest for adm issio n was
am big uous a nd K

ra ft a ct ed as Z ur ic h’ s age nt in the m ed ia tio n. F ed er al Ru le of Ci vil Procedure 36 go verns requests for adm issio ns. U nder the rule, “ [a] m atter a dm itted

. . . is co nc lus ive ly

e sta bli she d un le ss the c ourt, on m oti on, pe rm its the a dm iss iontoWe note that appellants a rgue for the first time on appe al that Z urich’s r equest for 3 a dmi ssi on

wa s ambi g uo us . In g e ne ra l, t his Court do e s n ot e nte rt a in a

rgume nts ra ise d f

or the fi rs t time on appea l. See Nar ey v. Dea n, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526- 27 (11th Cir. 1994). We see no r eason to d e viate fr om t

hat g e ne ra l r

ule in t his c a se . T he re fo re , w e do no t r e a c h th e me ri ts o f a pp e lla nts ’ ambig uity argument here . Moreove r, we note that appe llants have fa iled to identify in what mann e r t he a dmi ssi on

is a mbi g uo us . 6 be w ith dr aw n or am en de d. ” F ed
. R. Ci v. P
. 36( b)
. I f the a nsw er ing party f ind s a
re que st f or a dm iss ionw an tin g, the party m ay obj ec t to the re que st, sta tin g th e gr ound s for obj ection. F ed. R . C iv. P. 3 6(a)( 5). Thus, Rule 36 itself contains two procedures fo r re spon din g to pr obl em at ic r eque sts f or a dm iss ion : r ai sin g an obj ec tio n or m ovi ng the c ourt t o w ith dr awor

a m en d th e adm iss ion
. Inthi s c as e, F ranke l ne ith er obj ec te d to the r eque st f or a dm is sio n r eg ar din g Z ur ic h’ s auth or iz at ionin his r es pons e nor f ile d a m ot ionw iththe c ourt se ek ing to withdrawor am end his respon se. Ther efore, under Rule 3 6, Frankel’ s adm issio n that he did not obt ai n Z ur ic h’ s auth or iz at ionbe fo re e nte ri ng i nto the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t is c onc lus ive ly

e sta bli she d. E ve n th oughappe llants a rg ue tha t K ra ft ’ s co nduc t i n th e
m ed ia tio n c oul d a llo w aj ur y to co nc lud e tha t Z ur ic h wa s c onse nti ng t o th e
se tt le m en t, we can no t ig no re Frank el ’s ad m is si on . See Hug he s v. Van de rb il t Un iv ., 3 215 F.3d 543 , 549 (6th Cir. 2000 ) (holding th at plaintiff’ s st at emen t in her initial ple ad ing tha t inf

orm at ion ab out the al le ge d m ed ic al ex pe ri m en ts was wi de ly publ ic iz ed

in 1994 “ co nst itu te [d ] a n a dm iss iontha t a re as ona ble pe rs on s houl d have be ena w ar e of

the c la im s a t i ssu e by

tha t da te ” d espit e pla int if f’ s su bse que nt,7

co nf lic tin g af fi da vit ). S im ilarl y , w e cannot a cc ep t the a rg um en t tha t K ra ft w as a ct ing
as Z ur ic h’ s a ge nt i n th e se ttl em en t ne got ia tio ns. U nde r Fl or ida law , a ny de fe nse counsel hi re d t o re p resent the insured is an independ ent contractor, and the insurer is n ot v ic ar iou sly

li ab le fo r co unse l’ s a ct s and o m iss ion s. S ee A etnaCa s. & S ur . Co
. v. Pr otective Nat’ l Ins. Co. of Om aha, 631 So. 2d 305, 308 (F la. Dist. Ct. App. 1994 ). Beca use Frankel adm itted that he did not ob tain Zurich’ s autho ri za t ion before ag re ei ng t o the se tt le m en t, the re is no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t and Z ur ic h is
en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. B. Estoppel Appell an ts a lso a rg ue tha t Z ur ic h sh oul d be e sto ppe d f ro m a rg uin g th at

the settlem ent was unauthorized. Under F lorida law, equitable e stopp el is to be a pplied
w ithgr ea t cauti on, a nd e ac h e le m en t m ust be pr ove n w ithc le ar

a nd c onvi nc ing
ev ide nc e. W at son Cl ini c, L L P v. V er zo sa , 816 So
. 2d 8 32, 834 ( Fl a. D ist
. Ct
. App. 2002 ). I n or de r to s uc ce ed w ithade fe nse of

e qui ta ble e sto ppe l, the party

c la im ing
es top pe l m

ust pr ove tha t: “ (1 ) the pa rty ag ai nst w hom es top pe l is so ught m ust ha ve
m ade a r epresentation abo u t a m at erial f act that is contrary

to a positio n it later
as se rt s; ( 2) the party

c la im ing e sto ppe l m

ust ha ve r el ie d ontha t r ep re se nta tio n; and (3) the party seeking estoppel m ust have c hanged his positi on to h is detrim ent based on the re pr es en ta tio n an d his re lianc e on it. ” Id
. In thi s ca se , ap pe llants c an not pr oveAppellants’ r equest for oral a rgument is DENI ED. 4 8 the fi rs t ele m en t. Z ur ic h m ad e no re pr es en ta tio n, thr ough K ra ft or oth er w ise , tha t i t authorized Frankel to enter into the settlem ent. A s a re s u l t , Zurich is not estopp ed fr om a rguin g th at

F ranke l w as not

auth or iz ed

to en te r int o th e se ttl em en t. A cc or din gly , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED. 4