FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 23, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No.0 8- 10 95 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 60 32 5- CV-WPD THOSE CERTAIN UNDE RWRITERS AT LL OYD’ S LONDON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COM PANIES, Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us GMC LAND SERVICES, INC., etal., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n d oi ng bu si ne ss as R ic hm on d Ab st ract , Defen da nt s, OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL T ITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Mi nn es ot a co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 23 , 20 09 )Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t Ol d R ep ub li c Nat io na l Ti tl e In suran ce Co m pany (“ Old Rep ub li c”) app eal s t he gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Pla in ti ffs
App el le es , Tho se Cert ai n Un de rwri te rs at Ll oyd’s, Lon do n (“ Llo y d’s” ), in a de cl arat ory

jud gm en t s ui t s eek in g t o d et erm in e in su ran ce co ve rag e und er a pr of es si on al li ab il it y

po li cy is su edby L lo y d’s. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af

firm . The fact s l arg el y

are u nd is pu te d. Ol d R ep ub li c is a ti tl e in su ran ce
un de rwri te r. GMC Lan d S erv ic es of F lo rid a, In c. (“ GMC” ) op erat edas apo li cy is su in g a ge ntforOldRep ub li c; GMC re cei ve d a ndpro ces se d app li cat io ns forti tl e in su ran ce an d i ss ue d t it le in su ran ce p ol ic ie s fo r OldRep ub li c. Llo y d’s i ss ue d a pr of es si on al servi ces li ab il it y po li cy to GMC. On 2 8 Dec em

be r 20 04 , GMC cl os eda real est at e sa le on a pa rcel of pr op erty inPem br ok e Pi ne s, Fl or id a (the “ Pro pe rty”); b y warran ty deedfil edinth e Bro wardCo un ty Recor de r’s Offi ce, the Pro pe rty was tr an sf erre d fr om

Jac qu el in Jo ne s Th om

to Sh ek in al Awofa de

ju. Awofa de

ju h adob ta in eda m ortg ag e lo anof $4 56 ,00 0 fr om

Aegi s Fu nd in g C or

po rat io n (“ Aeg is ”); GMC i ss ue d ati tl e

2in su ran ce p ol ic y th ro ug h Ol d R ep ub li c in su rin g t it le to th e Pro pe rty onbe ha lf o f Aeg is inth e am ou ntof t he m ortg ag e. As o f 28 Decem

be r 20 04 , th e Rec or de r’s Offi ce re fle ct edth ata qu it cl ai m de edfor th e Pro pe rty hadbe enis su edon 19 Ju ly 200 4 andreco rd edon28 Sep te m be r 20 04 ; the qu it cl ai m

de edpu rp orte d t o t ran sf

er the Pro pe rty from

Ste ve n E. Tov ar t o J acque lyn Jo ne s Th om . Tov ar l at er fi le d a n a ct io n t o c le ar t it le
. Acco rd in g t o To va r, hi s s ig na tu re o n t he 19 Ju ly 200 4 qui tc la im de edwas fo rg ed , an d Th om

ob ta in edno ti tl e fro m

th e p ur po rte d t ran sf

er. Aeg is m ad e a cl ai m ag ai ns t Ol d R ep ub li c o n t he ti tl e in su ran ce p ol ic y ; an d Ol d R ep ub li c p ai d Aeg is $4 56 ,00 0, the ful l am ou ntof t he ti tl e in su ran ce p ol ic y . OldRep ub li c th enso ug ht to reco ve r th is pa ym en t fr om GMC cl ai m in g t ha t GMC ha d fa il edto fol lo w ap pl ic ab le ag en t g ui de li ne s an d p ro cedur es : s pe ci fic al ly, GMC h adfai le d t o a le rt OldRep ub li c to th e ex is te nc e o f th e qui tc la im de edinth e ch ai n o f ti tl e to th e Pro pe rty. G MC, i n turn, re po rte d t he cla im to Llo y d’s, i ts pro fes si on al servi ces li ab il it y in su rer. Llo y d’s d is cl ai m edco ve rag e und er the Po li cy ; an d Ll oyd’s in it ia te d t hi s d ecl arat ory

jud gm en t ac ti on to de te rm in e wha t o bl ig at io n, i f an y , it ha d u nd er the pro fes si on al li ab il it y po li cy to in de m ni fy GMC ag ai ns t cl ai m s m ad e by Old Re publ ic forGMC’s al le ge d n eg li ge nc e. Bo th pa rti es m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t b el ow; each adva nc edth e sa m e 3pr ov is io n o f th e p ro fes si on al li ab il it y po li cy insupp ort o f th e m ot io n. Th at pr ov is io n -- en ti tl ed“ Lan d F li p Ex cl us io n” -- rea ds :

Thi s Po li cy

do es no t ap pl y

to Los s i n c on ne ct io n wi th any Cl ai m : Bas edup onor d ire ct ly or in di rect ly aris in g o utof o r res ul ti ng fro m : (a ) an y

tra ns act io n i nv ol vi ng real pr op erty th atoc cu rs withi n s ix m on th s af te r a s al e, as si gn m en t, tran sf

er o r ch an ge inown ers hi p i nv ol vi ng su chreal pro pe rty, or (b ) an y fai lu re t o c om

pl y with cl os in g i ns tru ct io ns rel at in g t o apri orsal e, as si gn m en t, tra ns fer o r ch an ge inown ers hi p i nv ol vi ng th e p ro pe rty th atis th e subjec t o f cl os in g. App lying Flo rid a la w, th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atth e p la in lan gu ag e 1 of th e p ol ic y

ex cl ud edco ve rag e: th e 2 8 Dec em be r 20 04 pu rp orte d s al e o f th e Pro pe rty occu rredwithi n s ix m on th s o f th e 1 9 Jul y 20 04 pu rp orte d t ran sf

er fro m Tov ar. W e ag ree. OldRep ub li c arg ue s o n app eal -- as itdi d b efo re the di st ric t co urt -- th atth e
ex cl us io n h as no ap pl ic at io n b ecau se itis tri gg eredon ly whe n ava li d o r le gi ti m at e
oractua l “ sa le , ass ig nm en t, tran sf er o r ch an ge inown ers hi p” oc cu rs withi n t he pr eced in g s ix -m on thpe rio d. Acco rd in g t o Ol d R ep ub li c, th e cl ai m edfor ge ry of th e Tov ar qui tc la im

de edwas v oi d ab i ni ti o; itwas aleg al nu ll it y an d, as a m at te r

This matter is in fede ral c ourt under dive rsity jurisdiction; the parties agree d that Florida 1 law applies. 4of

law, was no trans act io n fo r pu rp os es of the LandFli p Ex cl us io n. Wha te ve r m ay

be th e st atus of t he Tov ar qui tc la im de edun de r pr in ci pl es of Fl or id a rea l es ta te law -- an d we a ss um e arg ue nd o t ha t the qu it cl ai m de edwas
vo idab in it io -- th e que st io n a t the he artof t hi s ap pe al is on e o f in su ran ce
co ve rag e an d p rin ci pl es of F lo rid a la w app li cab le to th e co ns tru ct io n o f an in su ran ce p ol ic y . As th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edco rrec tl y , in su ran ce p ol ic ie s m us t b e readas awho le , Fla . Sta t. § 62 7.4 19 (1 ). “ [I]ns ur an ce co nt ract s ar e co ns tru ed
acco rd in g t o t he ir p la in m ean in g,” Taurus Hol di ng s In c. v. U.S. Fi de li ty and Gua ran ty Co., 91 3 S o.2 d 5 28 , 53 2 (F la . 20 05 ); a ndev ery te rm sh ou ldbe gi ve n “ it s fu ll m ean in g a ndop erat iv e eff ect .” Aut o- Owner s In su ran ce Co . v. An de rs on , 75 6 So .2d29 , 34 (Fl a. 20 00 ). “ If the rel ev an t p ol ic y lan gu ag e is su sc ep ti bl e to m or e th anon e rea so nabl e in te rp ret at io n, o ne pro vi di ng co ve rag e an d a no th er l im it in g
co ve rag e, th e in su ran ce p ol ic y is co ns id eredam

bi gu ou s,” i d.; an d a m

bi gu it ie s ar e
co ns tru edinfav or

of t he in su redan d s tri ct ly agai ns t the in surer. Swi re Pa ci fic Hol di ng s, In c. v. Zu ric h In su ran ce Co ., 84 5 S o.2 d 1 61 , 16 5 (F la . 20 03 ). Bu t the Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt h as cau ti on edth atth is rul e o f co ns tru ct io n o nl y ap pl ie s whe n apro vi si on is actua ll y am bi gu ou s; “ ‘if a po li cy

pro vi si on is cle ar an d
un am bi gu ou s, i t s ho ul d b e en fo rcedacco rd in g t o i ts term s wh ethe r itis a ba si c po li cy pro vi si on or a n e xc lu si on ary pr ov is io n.’” Garci a v . Fed eral Ins ur an ce Co ., 596 9 S o.2 d 2 88 , 29 1 (F la . 20 07 ), qu ot in g Tau ru s Ho ld in gs , 91 3 S o.2 d a t 5 32
.

The in suran ce p ro vi si on at i ss ue is ti m e-fo cu se d: on ly pro pe rty tran sa ct io ns withi n asi x- m on th -ti m e-fr am e are ad dr es se d b y th e Lan d F li p Ex cl us io n. Tak en in co nt ex t, we ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e ex cl us io n is un am bi gu ou s; th e p ol ic y

ex cl ud es co ve rag e o f an y cla im di rect ly or in di rect ly ari si ng ou t o f an y

tra ns act io n (h ere, the sal e b y Tho m of t he Pro pe rty to Awofa de ju) wi th in si x m on th s af

te r an ot he r “ sa le , ass ig nm en t, tran sf er o r ch an ge in own ers hi p” (he re, the tra ns fer o f th e Pro pe rty from Tov ar t o Awo fad eju b y qu it cl ai m de edas r eco rd edinth e Co un ty Recor de r’s Offi ce). Un de r or di nary
ru le s o f co ns tru ct io n -- co ns tru in g the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e Po li cy as b arg ai ne d fo r by the pa rti es , see Aut o- Owner s, 7 56 So .2dat 3 3 -- th e Po li cy is su sc ep ti bl e to
on ly one reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n. We reject P la in ti ff’s eff orts to en gr aftfurth er li mit at io ns onth e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e Po li cy ; the Po li cy ex cl ud es co ve rag e o f cl ai m s ar is in g fr om

a sa le , ass ig nm en t, tran sf er, o r ch an ge inown ers hi p wi th in th e si x- m on th -ti m e fra m e whe th er the sal e, as si gn m en t, tran sf er, o r ch an ge in
own ers hi p i s d et erm in edlat er t o h av e b een il le gi ti m at e, frau du le nt , for ge d o r ot he rwis e o f no leg al co ns eque nc e. See Ex cel si orIns ur an ce Co . v. Po m on a Park Bar & Pack ag e St or e, 36 9 S o.2 d 9 38 , 94 2 (F la . 19 79 ) (co urts are n otto “ rewri te
co nt ract s, ad d m ean in g t ha t i s n otpre se nt , or o th erwi se reac h re su lt s co nt rary to
6th e in te nt io ns of t he pa rti es ”).

AFFIR MED. 2

Be cause we c onclude the district c ourt grante d summary judgme nt corre ctly

under c lause 2 (a) of the L and F lip Ex clusion, we do not consider L loyd’s argument that clause (b) a lso would support summary

judgme nt in its favor
. 7