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

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1571 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00494 -CV -4-RH -W CS MARKEL AMERIC AN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-C ount er Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CU RT IS JO N E S, an I ndi vid ua l an d a s P ar en t and N at

ur al G uard ian of Cu rti s J on es an d S habr ael ia h J on es , m in or s, A NN IE JO N E S, an I ndi vid ua l and as Par ent and Natura l Guar dian of Curt is J one s and S habr ae liah Jo ne s, m ino rs MEI HOLDINGS INC., A Delawa re Co rp or at io n, MARTIN ELECTRONICS I NC., De fendants-Counter Cl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ees .2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1017 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00494 -CV -4-RH -W CS MARKEL AMERIC AN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-C ount erDefen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CU RT IS JO N E S, an I ndi vid ua l an d a s P ar en t and N at

ur al G uard ian of Cu rti s J on es an d S habr ael ia h J on es , m in or s, A NN IE JO N E S, an I ndi vid ua l and as Par ent and Natura l Guar dian of Cu rti s J on es an d S habr ael ia h J on es , m in or s, MEI HOLDINGS INC., A Delawa re Co rp or at io n, MARTIN ELECTRONICS I NC., De fendants-CounterCl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll ees , DAVID COLE, et al ., Defen da nt s.3 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 18, 200 8) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN Aand W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Markel A m erican Insurance Com pany (“ Markel”) appeals the district
co ur t’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Mart in Elec tro ni cs , Inc ., MEI H old ing s I nc . ( “ ME I” ), Curt is J one s, and A nni e Jone s. Mark el arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by r ef usi ng t o e nf

or ce an e xc lus ionin its c om m er ci al um

br el la lia bil ity ins ur an ce pol ic y

pr ovi din g e xc es s c ove ra ge to ME I. Mark el say s th at it ha s no duty

to ind em nif y ME I fo r am ount s pa id t o se ttl e law sui ts ari sin g f ro m inj ur ie s to ME I’ s e m

plo y ee s inthe w orkpl ac e be ca use the pol ic y

unam big uous ly excludes coverage for M EI em ploy ees w ho were injure d by other em ploy ees during th e course of their em ploym ent. A lternatively , Markel say s that a m aterial iss ue of f ac t e xis ts, r equir ing the c as e to g o to tr ia l. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the e xc lus ionis am big uous be ca

use it is
sus ce pti ble to m or e than on e re as ona ble int er pr et at ion , one pr ovi din g c ove ra ge
an d a no th er l im it in g c ov erag e. A uto -O wn er s I ns. Co

. v . A nde rso n , 756 S o. 2d 2 9,4

34 (Fla. 2000 ). A s a result of the am bigu ity , the e xclusio n m

ust be interpreted

“ lib er al ly in favor of the ins ur ed

and s tr ic tly

a ga ins t the dr af

te r w ho p re pare d th e policy .” Id
. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld, the m ost log ic al r ea din g of

the e xc lus ion
re qui re s “ a dir ec t or

im m ed ia te inj ur

y ” by af el lowe m plo y ee , w hic h do es not

f it t h e f ac tu al ci rc u m s t an ce s o f t h i s ca s e. Ac co rd i n g l y, we a ff i rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s O rd er G ranti ng S um

m ar y Jud gm en t O n L ia

bil ity , da te d S ep te m

be r 6, 200 7. AFFIRMED.