FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T DECEMBER 4, 20 09
T HOMAS K . K AHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 0 9- 12 31 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 20 61 9- CV-DLG

ELLER MEDIA CORPORATION,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMP ANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 4, 2 00 9)

Befo re BARKETT, HULL and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Ell er Med ia Co rp or at io n n/ k/ a Cl ear Ch an ne l Out do or , In c. c o mm e n ced th is

act io n i n s ta te co ur t ag ai ns t Nat io na l Un io n F ire Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny of Pit ts bu rg h,PA an d AIG Tech ni cal Serv ic es I n c

. Th e a c ti on was rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t as a

di ve rs it y cas e. 1

Jo rg e Lui s Cab rera , a m in or , was e l e c t r oc ut ed ne ar a bu s sh el te r on or ab ou t

Octo be r 12 , 1 99 8. Ell er ha d pe rfo rm ed th e el ect ric al in st al la ti on at th e b us sh el te r.

The Mi am i-Da de Co un ty St at e Att or ne y ’s Offi ce pr os ecu te d Ell er fo r cri m in al

m an sl au gh te r, al le gi ng th at Ell er ha d pe r f o r m ed de fect iv e el ect ric al wor k at th e

sh el te r. Ell er sp en t si gn ifi can t su m s of m on ey in it s cri m in al de fen se

. So m e of th es e

f un ds were sp en t on “ wor k pr od uc t”
, in cl ud in g ex pe rt wit ne ss es an d de ve l o p i n g

de fen se st rat eg ie s. As Ell er po in ts ou t in it s br ie f, “ [a]lt ho ug h so m e ‘w or k pr od uc t’

in t h e l eg al se ns e m ay ha ve be en in cl ud ed
, th e te rm ‘w or k pr od uc t’ is us ed

d e s c r i p t i v el y an d no t as th e te rm is tra di ti on al ly us ed whe n refe rri ng to a le ga l

pr iv il eg e .” (Ap pe ll an t’s Bri ef at 8 n.2 .) W e us e th e te rm in th e sa m e se ns e. The

cri m in al cas e en de d i n a n a cq ui tt al for Ell er i n Ap ril 20 01

.

C a b r e r a ’s f

a mi l y i n i t i a t e d a c i v i l w r o ng fu l de at h act i o n a g a i n s t El l e r o n

Octo be r 20
, 19 98

. Ell er’s pr im ary in su rer, R e l i a n ce In su ran ce Co m pa ny, in it ia ll y

pr ov id ed Ell er’s de fen se

. On Sep te m be r 14 , 2 00 1, ho wev er, th e po li cy li m i t s were

ex ha us te d. As a res ul t, Nati on al Uni on to ok ov er Ell er’s de fen se pu rs ua nt to Ell er’s

Co m m erci al Um

br el la Po li cy

. Ell er cl ai m s th at Nati on al Uni on us ed wor k pr od uc t

The c laims ag ainst AI G wer e dismissed with prejudice a fter r emoval. 1

2c r eat ed an d pa id fo r by Ell er du rin g it s cri m in al pr oc eed in gs , in Nati on al Uni on ’s

ci vi l d efen se of El le r, bu t re fu se d t o p ay for th e wor k p ro du ct

.

Ell er br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t Nati on al Un i on , as se rti ng cl ai m s fo r un jus t

en ric hm en t, qu an tu m m eru it
, an d br each of co nt ract

. Bo th pa rti es m ov ed th e di st ric t

co ur t fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. Nati on al Uni on so ug ht su m m ary jud gm en t on al l th ree

co un ts of Ell er’s co m

pl ai nt

. Ell er op po se d Nati on al Uni on ’s m ot io n fo r s u mm a r y
jud gm en t, and so ug ht pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t on th e br each of co nt ract cl ai m , or

in th e al te rn at iv e, li ab il it y ba se d u p o n u nju st en ric hm en t or qu an tu m m eru it

. (R.5

-

13 1 at 3.) The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Nati on al Uni on ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,

an d de ni ed Ell er’s m ot io n. (R.5 -1 31 at 18 .) Ell er ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in gr an ti n g s u mm a ry jud gm en t to Nati on al Uni on on each of it s th ree

cl ai m s.

W e fi rs t co ns id er th e un

jus t en ric hm en t cl ai m . I n o rd er t o p rev ai l u nd er s uc h

a cl ai m in Fl or id a, Ell er m us t de m on st rat e fact s, th at if acce pt ed as tru e, wou ld

es ta bl is h: (1 ) th at a be ne fit was co nf erre d up on Nati on al Uni o n ; ( 2 ) t h at Nati on al

Uni on ei th er req ue st ed th e be ne fit or vo lu nt ari ly acc ep te d it ; an d ( 3 ) th at un de r th e

pr es en t ci rcu m st an ces , it wou ld be in eq ui ta bl e fo r Nati on al Uni on to ret ai n th e be ne fit

wit ho ut pa y in g fo r it

. W

.R. To wn se nd Co nt ra ct in g, In c. v. Jen se n Ci vi l Co ns t

. I n c

. ,

72 8 S o.2 d 2 97 , 30 3 (F la . 1s t Di st . Ct. Ap p. 1 99 9)

.

3Alt ho ug h Ell er arg ue s ot he rwis e, co ur ts m ay res ol ve un jus t en ric hm en t cl ai m s

on su m m ary jud gm en t. Se e e.g ., No va In fo

. Sy s

. , In c. v. Gre en wi ch In s. Co

., NAC
,

3 6 5 F

. 3 d 9 96 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ). W e as su m e fo r pu rp os es of th is ap pe al
, as di d t h e

di st ric t co ur t, th at Ell er es ta bl is he d th e fir st two el em en ts of an un jus t en ric hm en t

cl ai m

. Nev ert he le ss , we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at no in eq ui ty wou ld oc cu r by

al lo win g Nati on al Uni on to ret ai n th e be n e f it of th e wor k pr od uc t wit ho ut pa y in g

Ell er fo r it

. “ [E]qui ty su gg es ts th at Nati on al Uni on sh ou ld no t be req ui red to pa y fo r

th e ‘w or k pr od uc t’ of Ell er th at Ell er ge ne rat ed in it s own cri m in al de fen s e , whi ch

was ul ti m at el y us ed ag ai n fo r th e be ne fit of Ell er in it s ci vi l de fen se .” (R.5 -1 31 at 14 .)

Ell er di sp ut es th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at it rece iv ed a be ne fit fro m Nati on al

Uni on ’s rep res en ta ti on

. In st ead
, Ell er co nt en ds t h a t it was Nati on al Uni on th at

rece iv ed a be ne fit fro m us e of th e wor k pr od uc t, b e cau se Nati on al Uni on was

su bjec te d t o t he fin an ci al ex po su re i n t he civ il su it , no t El le r. W e d is ag ree.

Reg ard le ss of an y be ne fit Nati on al Uni on rece iv ed or th e na tu r e o f El le r’s

li m it ed fin an ci al ex po su re, it is un de ni ab le th at Ell er rece iv e d so me be ne fit fro m

Nati on al Uni on ’s us e of th e wor k pr od uc t du rin g it s ci vi l de fen se of Ell er. Mo reo ve r,

Ell er cert ai nl y be ne fit te d du rin g it s cri m in al pr o ceed in gs fro m th e wor k pr od uc t it

de ve lo pe d. “ Ord in ari ly, res ti tu ti on is no t av ai la bl e un de r an un jus t en ric hm en t th eo ry

fo r a be ne fit co nf

erre d as an in ci de nt of a pl ai nt iff ’s ha vi ng act ed pr im ari ly fo r hi s or

4he r own be ne fi t

. ” 6 6 A m. J ur

. 2d
, Rest it ut io n an d Imp li ed Co nt ra ct s , § 13

. Thu s,

al th ou gh it was “ fo rtu it ou s” fo r Nati on al Uni on to us e Ell er’s wor k pr od uc t du rin g

it s rep res en ta ti on of Ell er, (R.5 -1 31 at 15 ), th at wor k pr od uc t was us ed so le ly fo r th e

be ne fit of Ell er du rin g th e cri m in al pr oc eed in gs an d at le as t part ly fo r th e be ne fit of

Ell er du rin g th e ci vi l act io n. W e co nc ur wit h th e di st ri c t c o u r t t h at if Ell er’s lo gi c

were fo ll owe d, Nati on al Uni on wou ld ha ve be en ab le to st art fro m sc rat ch an d fo reg o

us in g th e wor k pr od uc t th at al read y ex is te d. “ Howev er, if Nati on al U n i on ha d

f ol lo wed su ch a co ur se of co nd uc t

. . . it is qu es ti on ab le whe th er Na t i o n a l U n i o n

wou ld ha ve be en act in g in th e be st in te res t of [Ell er] an d/ or act in g in go od fai th in th e

res ol ut io n of it [s ] in su red ’s cl ai m s.” (Dis t. Ct

. Ord er, R.1 -1 31 at 14 -1 5) ( ci ti ng Na t’l

Uni on Fir st . I ns . C o. v. Tr av el er

s In s. Co

. , 2 14 F.3 d 12 69 , 1 27 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ).

Bec au se no in eq ui ty wou ld res ul t by al lo win g Nati on al Uni on to us e th e wor k pr od uc t

wit ho ut pr ov id in g co m

pe ns at io n to El l er, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t t o Nat io na l Un io n o n t he un jus t en ric hm en t cl ai m

.

Hav in g co ns id ered th e br ie fs on th e ot he r is su es , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t

co ur t pr op erl y gr an t e d N at io na l Uni on su m m ary jud gm en t on Ell er’s br each of

co nt ract an d qu an tu m m eru it cl ai m s fo r th e reas on s st at ed in it s or de r on th e m ot io n.
(R.5 -1 31 .)

AFFIR MED.

5