[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 21-11199

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-02242-GAP-GJK

TRICON DEVELOPMENT OF BREVARD, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 10, 2021)

Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc., appeals a summary judgment in favor 

of Nautilus Insurance Company on Tricon’s claim for breach of contract. Tricon 

USCA11 Case: 21-11199 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 1 of 7
2

argues that Nautilus breached its insurance policies by failing to reimburse Tricon 

for additional costs caused by a subcontractor’s deficient work. Upon consideration, 

we conclude that Tricon’s arguments lack merit and affirm the district court’s grant 

of summary judgment.

I.

Tricon is a general contractor that constructs condominium units. A few years 

ago, Tricon was hired to serve as the general contractor for a condominium project 

in Florida. Tricon then hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings 

for the project. The subcontractor was insured by Nautilus through two commercial

general liability insurance policies. The policies covered “those sums that the insured 

becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property 

damage’ to which this insurance applies.” The policies then defined “property 

damage” as “[p]hysical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use 

of that property” or “[l]oss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.”

The subcontractor obtained an endorsement to each of its policies that added 

Tricon as an additional insured. The endorsements amended the “Who Is An 

Insured” sections of the policies “to include as an additional insured any person or 

organization for whom you are performing operations” but “only with respect to 

liability for ‘bodily injury,’ ‘property damage’ or ‘personal or advertising injury’ 

USCA11 Case: 21-11199 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 2 of 7
3

caused, in whole or in part by” the subcontractor’s direct or vicarious acts or 

omissions.

Although the subcontractor fabricated some of the railings, they had defects 

and damage, were not installed properly, and did not meet the project’s 

specifications. Tricon found another manufacturer to fabricate new railings to satisfy 

the project’s requirements, and Tricon’s client also paid that manufacturer to remove 

the subcontractor’s railings and install new ones. Tricon agreed to pay the cost of 

removing the subcontractor’s railings and fabricating and installing the new ones, 

and it filed an insurance claim to Nautilus to cover those costs. Nautilus denied the 

claim, and Tricon filed a complaint alleging breach of contract under its two policies 

in Florida state court. Nautilus removed the case to the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida and eventually moved for summary judgment on 

Tricon’s claim. The district court granted Nautilus’s motion, and Tricon timely 

appealed.

II.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all 

the evidence—and drawing all reasonable factual inferences—in favor of the 

nonmoving party. See Amy v. Carnival Corp., 961 F.3d 1303, 1308 (11th Cir. 2020). 

“A grant of summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

USCA11 Case: 21-11199 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 3 of 7
4

law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “But it 

is improper if a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.” Id. However, 

“[w]e can affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if the district court did 

not rely on that reason.” Wright v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 833 F.3d 1291, 1294 

(11th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

III.

On appeal, Tricon argues that (1) the subcontractor’s deficient fabrication and 

installation of the railings constituted “property damage” covered by Nautilus’s 

insurance policies; (2) the endorsements added to the policies made Tricon an 

insured; and (3) no exclusions applied to Nautilus’s coverage of Tricon for the 

deficient fabrication and installation of the railings.

The policies at issue in this appeal are post-1986 standard form commercial 

general liability policies with products-completed operations hazard coverage, 

which are governed by Florida law. We have held that such policies do not cover the 

costs of replacing defective products. In Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. 

Auchter Company, we examined a post-1986 standard form commercial general 

liability policy with products-completed operations hazard coverage. That policy

“define[d] ‘property damage’ as ‘physical injury to tangible property, including all 

resulting loss of use of that property . . . or . . . loss of use of tangible property that 

is not physically injured.’” 673 F.3d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). 

USCA11 Case: 21-11199 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 4 of 7
5

Applying Florida law, we held that “there is no coverage if there is no damage 

beyond the faulty workmanship, i.e., unless the faulty workmanship has damaged 

some otherwise nondefective component of the project.” Id. at 1306 (citing U.S. Fire 

Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871, 889 (Fla. 2007)). We also held that “if a 

subcontractor is hired to install a project component and, by virtue of his faulty 

workmanship, installs a defective component, then the cost to repair and replace the 

defective component is not ‘property damage.’” Id. (citing Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. 

Pozzi Window Co., 984 So.2d 1241, 1248 (Fla. 2008)). We further held that

“nondefective and properly installed raw materials can constitute a defective project 

component when the contract specifications call for the use of different materials, 

yet the cost to reinstall the correct materials is not ‘property damage’—even though 

the remedy for such a nonconformity is to remove and replace that component of the 

project.” Id. (citing Pozzi, 984 So.2d at 1248).

Here, Tricon alleges that the subcontractor’s railings were deficient due to 

having defects and damage, not being installed properly, and not satisfying the 

project’s specifications; it does not allege that the subcontractor’s faulty 

workmanship damaged otherwise non-defective components of the project. The 

Nautilus policies here define “property damage” in the same way that the policy in 

Auchter did. Thus, the costs that Tricon incurred in removing the subcontractor’s 

USCA11 Case: 21-11199 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 5 of 7
6

railings and the fabrication and installation of new railings do not constitute 

“property damage” under the policies—just as they did not in Auchter.

Tricon responds to Auchter by arguing that the costs that it incurred were due 

to the “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured” because the 

railings and condominiums in which they were installed “experienced no physical 

damage.” It then remarks that although Auchter “noted that [this part of the ‘property 

damage’ definition] was present in the policy,” it “never said another word about it.”

Tricon then states that we “decided the case by only applying” the first part of the 

definition, namely physical injury to tangible property.

But that argument misunderstands our decision in Auchter. There, we held—

after “interpret[ing] the policy as a whole [and] ‘endeavoring to give every provision 

its full meaning and operative effect’”—that there was no coverage for the defective 

installation at issue. Under this Circuit’s prior-panel-precedent rule, “a prior panel’s 

holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or 

undermined to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting 

en banc.” In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 794 (11th Cir. 2015). We therefore must treat

our holding in Auchter as correct. And for it to be correct, the entire definition of 

“property damage” in the post-1986 standard form commercial general liability

policy must fail to cover the kinds of costs that Tricon incurred from its

USCA11 Case: 21-11199 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 6 of 7
7

subcontractor’s deficient work. We therefore conclude that the costs incurred by 

Tricon are not covered by Nautilus’s policies.

IV.

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of Nautilus.

USCA11 Case: 21-11199 Date Filed: 09/10/2021 Page: 7 of 7