FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 64 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 32 34 -WMH OFFIC ER JOSE R. ESTEVEZ, in di vi du al ly, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERI CA, 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 urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 7 , 20 11 )

Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ci ty of Mi am i Po li ce Offi cer J os e R. Est ev ez ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s

de ni al of h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n the pl ead in gs , or a lt ern at iv el y , m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t i n an i nd em ni ty acti on ag ai ns t No rth ernAss ur an ce Co m pa ny of Am eri ca (the Ins ur er). Th is act io n aris es ou t o f a co ll is io n i n B is cayne Bay in vo lv in g aCit y

of M ia mi (t he Cit y ) po li ce b oa t o pe rat edby O ffi cer Es te ve z an d a ve ss el own edby Con te nd er Fi sh in g Team , LLC (Con te nd er). Ri ch ardS. Sol , a pa ss en ge r on th e Co nt en de r ve ss el , fil eda co m pl ai ntag ai ns t the Cit y

an d o th ers , in cl ud in g Off

ic er Es te ve z se ek in g d am ag es forhi s al le ge d b od il y in juri es su st ai ne d dur in g the co ll is io n. Th e In su rer re fu se d t o d efen d o r in de m ni fy Offic er Est ev ez i n S ol ’s neg li ge nc e act io n. The pri m ary is su e o n app eal is whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredwhenitfou nd Offi cer Es te ve z was no t co ve redun de r th e p ro te ct io n andin de m ni ty cov erag e se ct io n o f th e Ci ty’ s M ari naOper at or s Leg al Liab il ity Po li cy (th e Po li cy ). 1 Offi cer Es te ve z co nt en ds th ata pl ai n re ad in g o f th e p ro te ct io n andin de m ni ty se ct io n o f th e Po li cy

cle arl y an d u na m

bi gu ou sl y requi res th e In surer t o d efen d and in de m ni fy hi m for So l’s p ers on al in

jury clai m

be cau se (1) Est ev ez i s an Be cause we c onclude that the Policy in question is unambiguous, we need not r eac h the 1 issue of whe ther Of

fice r Esteve z automatically wins under the F lorida Rule that ambiguous insurance contra cts are construed a g ainst the insurer. F urthermor e, Of fice r Esteve z’s argument that extrinsi c evide nce is not admissible to resolve a mbiguities in an insura

nce c ontrac t is without merit. See R einman, Inc . v. Prefe rred Mut. Ins. Co. , 513 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d D CA 1987) (holdingthat “extrinsic evidencemay be introduce d to expl ain [an] ambiguity .”).

2“ em

pl oyee” o f th e Ci ty, (2 ) he op erat eda “ wate rcra ft,” an d (3 ) th e o pe rat io n o f th e Ci ty ves se l was “ inco nju nc ti on with n orm al bu si ne ss op erat io ns .” Afte r car efu l rev ie w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt. 2 W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Huf f v. Deka lb Co un ty, Ga. , 51 6 F .3d12 73 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The i nt erp ret at io n o f di sp ut edpro vi si on s i n an i ns ur an ce co ntractis a qu es ti on of l aw rev ie wedde no vo . Ja mes Rive r In s. Co . V. Grou nd Down Eng ’g

, Inc . 54 0 F .3d12 70 , 12 74 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) .

“ [I]n the ab se nc e o f a s pe ci fic an d c on tro ll in g ru le , th e in te rp ret at io n o r co ns tru ct io n o f a m ari ne in su ran ce co nt ractis to be de te rm in edby stat e la w.” Se e All Underwr it er

s v. Weis be rg , 22 2 F .3d13 09 , 13 13 (11 thCir . 20 00 ). Und er Fl or id a la w, “ [t]he m ere f ai lu re t o p ro vi de a de fin it io n fo r a t erm in vo lv in g co ve rag e d oe s n otne ces sa ril y ren de r th e te rm

am bi gu ou s.” Jef

fe rs on Ins . Co. o

f NewY ork v. S ea W or ld of Flo ri da , Inc . , 58 6 S o. 2 d 9 5, 9 7 (F la . 5th DCA 1 99 1) . Furth er, “ [a]n i so late d p ro vi si on of a n i ns ur an ce p ol ic y can no t b e co ns id eredas de te rm in at iv e o n the is su e o f co ve rag e[; ] [r]ath er, the ‘ in su ran ce co nt ractsh al l b e A pane l of this Court has rece ntly decide d the issue of whe ther the pr otection and 2 indemnity

section conta ined within the Policy provides cove rag e for

the City . See Contende r Fishing Team, LL C v. City of Miami , No. 10-10454, 2010 WL5095873 (11th Cir. Dec . 15, 2010). The opinion in Contender holding that the Policy did not provide indemnity cover ag e for the ac cident in question is consistent with our decision in this case. 3co ns tru edacco rd in g t o the en ti rety of i ts term s an d c on di ti on s as setforth inth e po li cy an d a s ampli fie d, ex te nd ed , or m od ifi edby any ap pl ic at io n the refo re o r an y rid er o r en do rs em en t the ret o.’” AAA Life Ins ur an ce Co . v. Nic ol as , 60 3 S o. 2 d 62 2, 6 23 (Fl a. 3dDCA 19 92 ). Est ev ez fi rs t ar gu es th e p hr as e “ no rm al bu si ne ss op erat io ns ,” whi chis no t de fin edinth e p ol ic y , in cl ud es an y bu si ne ss th e Ci ty regu larly eng ag es in . Und er Fl or id a ru le s o f co ntractco ns tru ct io n, Offi cer Es te ve z’s read in g o f th is sec ti on of th e Po li cy

is inerro r. Whe n we r eadth e en ti re p ol ic y , as a m pl ifi edby the ap pl ic at io n, we co nc lu de th atth e p hr as e “ no rm al bu si ne ss op erat io ns ” cl earl y

3 m ean s “ m ari naop erat io ns ” an d n otothe r op erat io ns inwhi chth e Ci ty may happ en to en ga ge . The Po li cy

it se lf i s ca ll ed“ Mar in a Ope rat or s Leg al Liab il ity Po li cy ,” an d the in tro du ct io n t o the Po li cy st at es th atth e Po li cy

is on e fo r “ m ari naown ers ” an d c ov ers “ m ari naop erat io ns .” Mo reo ve r, th e Ci ty lis te d “ m un ic ip al m ari na s an d m oo rin g fa ci li ty” onit s re ne wal app li cat io n. Un de r th e p rin ci pl e th atsp eci fic ph ras es (m ari naop erat io ns ) go ve rnge ne ral ph ras es (bu si ne ss op erat io ns ), itis cl ear the ph ras e “ no rm al bu si ne ss op erat io ns ” is li m it edto no rm al m ari na op erat io ns . Se e Pot ts bu rg Uti li ti es , Inc . v. Gaugh ar ty , 30 9 S o. 2 d 1 99 , 20 1 Although O ffice r Esteve z argues the a pplication is separate from the insura nce c ontrac t, 3 it is clear unde r F lorida law that the document is part of the contra ct. SeeFla. Stat. § 627.419(1) ; AAA Life Insurance , 603 So. 2d at 623. 4(Fl a. 1s t DCA 1 97 5) (st at in g “ whe re b ot h g en eral an d s pe ci fic lan gu ag e [i s] us ed

ina co nt ract , th e sp eci fic lan gu ag e wil l g ov ernwher e th ere i s a c on fli ct .”) Offi cer Es te ve z’s cl ai m

th atth e “ wate rcra ft” refe rredto inth e p ro te ct io n an d i nd em

ni ty sect io n e nc om

pa ss es all wate rcra ft o wne d o r op erat edby the Cit y is equa ll y witho utm eri t. Fi rs t, the de cl arat io ns pa ge s s ho w th at“ 5 WorkBo at s” are in cl ud edun de r th is pro vi si on . Furt he r, th e Ci ty kne w th aton ly lis te d v es se ls were in cl ud edinth e Po li cy , as e vi de nc edby its reque stto ad d an a dd it io na l v es se l o n it s m os t re cen t re ne wal. Las tl y , th e Ci ty cho se whi chsubs ect io ns of p ro te ct io n an d i nd em

ni ty to i nc lu de init s p ol ic y . It co ul d h av e ch os ento co ve r “ ot he r own ed bo at s,” o r “ ren ta l b oa ts ,” bu t i ns te ad , th e Ci ty cho se on ly the “ work b oa ts ” an d

“ m ari naop erat or s” subs ect io ns . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Offi cer Es te ve z’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n the pl ead in gs , or a lt ern at iv el y , m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.

5