FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 82 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 7- cv -2 30 44 -AJ; 1: 07 -cv -2 33 58 -AJ 1: 07 -cv -2 30 44 ESPERANZA GARCIA, as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Pao laPen afi el , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defend an t - Ap pe ll ee,

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 1: 07 -cv -2 33 58 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a fo rei gn in su ran ce co m

pa ny, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, EDGAR BAENA, MIGUEL BAENA, ESTATE O F PAOLA PENAFIEL, ERICA MANSON,ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts ,

ALEXAND RA MONTOYA, et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen da nt s.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 9, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, W ILSON, andARNOLD, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM: Thi s i s a c on so li da te d app eal in vo lv in g t he in te rp ret at io n o f an au to m ob il e in su ran ce p ol ic y ’s “ no n- own edau to ” p ro vi si on . Esp eran za Garc ia , Edg ar Ba en a, an d M ig ue l Ba en a ap pe al a se rie s o f di st ric t co urt o rd ers in fav orof Ge ic o Gen eral In su ran ce Co m

pa ny (“ Geic o” ). Forth e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we re ve rs e an d re m an d. InDecem be r 20 06 , Mig ue l fl ew to So ut h F lo rid a fo r va cat io n. Atth e Fo rt Lau de rd al e ai rp ort, h e ren te d acar fr om Ent erp ris e Ren t-A- Car ( “ Ent erp ris e”). Whe n a n En te rp ris e rep res en ta ti ve ask edhi m whet he r th ere wo ul d b e an y ot he r dr iv ers , Mig ue l re sp on de d i n t he ne ga ti ve . The ren ta l ag reem en t t he refo re s ta te d,

Honora ble Morris S. Arnold, United States Senior Circuit Judge f or the Eighth Circuit, * sitti ngby designation. 2“ no ot he r dr iv ers pe rm it te d.” Mig ue l d idno t h av e h is own au to m ob il e in su ran ce,

an d h e d idno t p ur ch as e li ab il it y in su ran ce fr om

Ent erp ris e. Mi gu el lat er m ethi s b ro th er Ed ga r, who was n otpri vy to t he term s o f th e ren ta l ag reem en t wi th Ent erp ris e. The b ro th ers att en de d aMi am i Hea t g am e to ge th er, an d o n t he way

ho m e fro m

th e g am e, Mi gu el ask edEdg ar t o d riv e. Edg ar ag reed , anddu rin g the co ur se of o pe rat in g the ve hi cl e, Edg ar cr as he d i nt o Pao laPen afi el ’s car. Pen afi el was k il le d i n t he co ll is io n. Alt ho ug h M ig ue l was un in su red , Edg ar h adanau to m ob il e in su ran ce p ol ic y wit h Gei co . Geico co nc ed edth atit s p ol ic y wit h Ed ga r st at edth atGeic o was 1 li ab le forda m ag es ari si ng ou t o f Edg ar’s u se of a“ no n- own edau to ”—h ere, t he Ent erp ris e ren ta l ca r. Howev er, u nd er t he po li cy , Geico ’s li ab il it y was c on ti ng en t
on th e co nd it io n t ha t, “ [s ]uchus e [o f th e n on -o wne d aut o] m us t b e wi th th e pe rmiss io n , or re as on ab ly bel ie ve d t o b e wit h the pe rm is si on , of th e o wn er an d wit hi n t he sco pe of t ha t p erm is si on .” (em ph as es ad de d) . Becau se Geic o b el ie ve d th atEnt erp ris e d idno t g ran t s uc h p erm is si on , Geico de ni edco ve rag e fo r th e acci de nt . Garci a, th e rep res en ta ti ve of P en afi el ’s est at e, subs eque nt ly reach eda Edg ar’ s policy

was the only

possible source of

insurance cover ag e for

Penafie l's c laims 1 beca use the Gr aves Amendment prohibited Ga rcia from bring ing suit ag ainst Enterprise or Enterpr ise’s insurer

to rec over f

or Penaf iel’s death. See 49 U.S.C. § 30106. 3Co bl en tz ag reem en t wi th Edg ar, i n wh ic h Ed ga r ag reedto th e en try of a co ns en t

jud gm en t i n t he am ou ntof $ 5 m il li on in res ol ut io n o f th e es ta te ’s wron gf ul de at h act io n a ga in sthi m . Se e Co bl en tzv. Am. Su r. Co . of N.Y
. , 41 6 F .2d10 59 , 10 62 –6 3 (5 th Cir . 19 69 ). Garci a is no w pro ceed in g a ga in stGeic o o n ath eo ry of b adfai th 2
un de r Fl or id a la w to reco ve r th e $ 5 m il li on jud gm en t. The re were th ree t ria ls inth is cas e, an d n ei th er jury in th e fi rs t t wo t ria ls
was ab le to reac h ave rd ic t. Aft er t he fir sttri al , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d adi rect ed
ve rd ic t fo r Gei co onth e is su e o f whe th er En te rp ris e co ns en te d t o Ed ga r’s us e o f th e ren ta l v eh ic le . In d oi ng so , th e d is tri ctco urt re jecte d t he arg um en t tha t Ent erp ris e h adgi ve n i m

pl ie d p erm is si on to Edg ar, an d fo un d a s a m at te r of law th atEnt erp ris e d idno t co ns en t t o Ed ga r’s us e. Ther efo re, t he sec on d a ndth ird tri al s ad dr es se d o nl y

whet he r Edg ar re as on ab ly bel ie ve d h e h adth e o wne r’s pe rm is si on to dri ve th e ren ta l ca r. In t he th irdtri al , th e jury rend ereda ve rd ic t i n fav orof Ge ic o, fi nd in g t ha t al th ou gh Edg ar h adMi gu el ’s exp res s p erm is si on to dr iv e th e ren ta l ca r, Edg ar d idno t re as on ab ly bel ie ve he ha d t he pe rm is si on of Ent erp ris e, th e o wne r. Garci a, Edg ar, an d M ig ue l n ow ap pe al
. W e fo cu s fi rs t o n t he m ai n i ss ue of t he ap pe al : Ap pe ll an ts ’ co nt en ti on th at

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 2 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all of the dec isions of the Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to October 1, 1981. 4th e co urt erredby refus in g t o app ly Flor id a’s da ng ero us in st ru m en ta li ty doc tri ne in

th is cas e an d i nt erp ret in g “pe rm is si on . . . fro m th e o wne r” as ex pr es s p erm is si on . W e rev ie w con st ru ct io n o f an in su ran ce p ol ic y de no vo . James Ri ver Ins . Co. v. Gro un d Do wn Eng ’g

, Inc
. , 54 0 F .3d12 70 , 12 73 –7 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . “ Bec au se fed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er thi s m at te r is ba se d o n d iv ers it y , Flo rid a la w go ve rn s t he de te rm in at io n o f th e is su es on th is ap pe al .” St at e Far m Fir e & Ca s. Co . v. St ei nb er g , 39 3 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e wil l “ fo ll ow t he de ci si on s o f th e st at e’s hi gh es t co urt wh en th atco urt h as ad dr es se d t he rel ev an t i ss ue ,” Tech ni ca l Co at in g Ap

pl ic at or s, In c. v. U.S. Fid. &Gua r. Co
. , 15 7 F .3d84 3, 8 44 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) , and“ ap pl y th e st at e la w as i t ex is ts at t he ti m e o f th e ap pe al an d
no t atth e ti m e o f th e d is tri ctco urt ju dg m en t,” id
. at84 5 (c it in g Kr ame r v. Pi pe r Air cr af t Co rp . , 86 8 F .2d15 38 , 15 41 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (p er cu ria m )). In li gh t o f th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s re cen t ru li ng in Ch an dl er v. Geic o In de m. Co. , —So
. 3d—, 2 01 1 WL 58 64 80 8 (F la . Nov . 23 , 20 11 ), we ag ree wi th App el la nt s an d
rev ers e an d re m an d. 3 The Geic o p ol ic y

di ct at edth atGeic o wo ul d p ro vi de co ve rag e if Edg ar h ad be en us in g abo rro wedve hi cl e wit h t he “pe rm is si on . . . of th e o wne r.” App el la nt s
Given that in Chandler

the Flor ida Supreme Court a ddresse d the same issue r aised in 3 Appellants’ Motion for Expedited Certification to the Florida Supreme Court, we find cer tification to be unnec essar y , and thus Appellants’ motion is DENI ED.

5arg ue th atsu chpe rm is si on is est ab li sh ed —ev en inth e ab se nc e o f anex pr es s st at em en t g ran ti ng pe rm is si on—wh ere t he own er h as gi ve n i ts co ns en t t o t he us e orop erat io n o f th e au to m ob il e b ey on d i ts imm ed ia te co nt ro l, u nl es s i t ca n b e de m on st rat edth atth ere h as be en“ a b reac h o f cu st od y am ou nt in g t o asp eci es of
co nv ers io n o r th eft .” Roth v . Old Repu bl ic Ins . Co. , 26 9 S o. 2 d 3 , 5 (Fl a. 19 72 ) (quo ti ng Su sc o C

ar Rent al Sys. o f Fl a. v. Le on ar d , 11 2 S o. 2 d 8 32 , 83 5– 36 (Fl a. 19 59 )). App el la nt s as se rt t ha t “ pe rm is si on ” is pre se ntin th e ren ta l ca r co nt ex t whe n the dri ve r rec ei ve s p erm is si on to dri ve th e carfro m so m eo ne lawf

ul ly in po ss es si on of t he ve hi cl e. Becaus e th e jury det erm in edth atEdg ar re cei ve d
ex pr es s p erm is si on fro m

Mi gu el (th e au th or iz edren te r), App el la nt s ar gu e th at Edg ar the refo re h adpe rm is si on as am at te r of law fr om Ent erp ris e. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Ch an dl er supp orts App el lant s’ in te rp ret at io n o f “pe rm is si on .” In Ch an dl er , Kut as haSh azi er was in su redby Geic o u nd er a p ol ic y

th atpro vi de d c ov erag e fo r Sh azi er’s v eh ic le an d any

“ te m po rary sub st itut e au to .” 20 11 W L 58 64 80 8, at*2 . A “ te m po rary sub st itut e au to ” was de fin edas ave hi cl e n otown edby the po li cy ho ld er t ha t was te m po rari ly use d “ wit h t he pe rm is si on of t he own er.” Id
. Whe n S ha zi er’s v eh ic le br ok e d own , sh e o bt ai ne d aren ta l ca r fro m Avi s R en t-A- Car ( “ Avi s” ). The re nt al ag reem en t b et ween Sh azi er an d Av is , m uc h l ik e th e ag reem en t i n t hi s ca se , st at ed
6th atno ad di ti on al op erat or s o f th e v eh ic le were au th or iz edan d t ha t al lo win g a n

un au th or iz eddri ve r to op erat e th e carwou ldau to m at ic al ly term in at e th e ren ta l ag reem en t. Id
. at*1 . Sha zi er s ub se qu en tl y pe rm it te d an u naut ho riz eddri ve r to op erat e th e car , who in tu rnlen t t he car t o ano th er u naut ho riz eddri ve r who
cras he d t he ve hi cl e. Id
. Geic o d en ie d c ov erag e fo r th e acc id en t i n Ch an dl er , arg ui ng th atus e o f th e ren ta l ca r by the un au th or iz eddri ve r te rm in at edth e ren ta l ag reem en t b etween Avi s an d S ha zi er an d t hu s re vo ke d t he “pe rm is si on of t he own er.” Id
. Bec au se Geic o de te rm in edth atSh azi er l ack edpe rm is si on , th e carwas n otwit hi n Gei co ’s

“ te m po rary sub st itut e au to ” co ve rag e. Id
. The t ria l co urt d is ag reed , fin di ng th at Geic o wo ul d b e li ab le for an y da m ag es owedby Shazi er, b utth e Fi rs t Di st ric t Co urt o f App eal s re ve rs ed , ho ld in g t ha t Av is ha d the rig htto de fin e th e sc op e o f it s p erm is si on an d t ha t u naut ho riz edus e o f th e car effe ct iv el y

rev ok edth at pe rm is si on . Id
. at * 2. Th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t he n qua sh edth e d is tri ct
co urt’s d eci si on . Id
. at * 10
. The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t u nd er Fl or id a’s da ng ero us in st ru m en ta li ty doc tri ne , th e type o f co ns en t g iv en by a car own er “ is si m pl y co ns en t t o t he us e o r op erat io n o f su ch anin st ru m en ta li ty bey on d [t he own er’s] imm ed ia te co nt ro l,” id
. at*5 (qu ot in g Su sc o , 11 2 S o. 2 d a t 8 37 ), an d t ha t co ns en t 7is no t re vo ke d i n t he ab se nc e o f “ a b reac h o f cu st od y am ou nt in g t o asp eci es of
co nv ers io n o r th eft ,” id
. at*4 (qu ot in g Su sc o , 11 2 S o. 2 d a t 8 35 –3 6) . Becau se Fl or id a la w ho ld s t ha t a c on tra ctbe twee n aren ta l co m pa ny anda ren te r th at
res tri ct s u se by unaut ho riz eddri ve rs can no t “ ch an ge th e fac t tha t t he au to m ob il e was be in g u se d wi th th e o wne r’s co ns en t,” se e Su sc o , 11 2 S o. 2 d a t 8 35 , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t Sh azi er h adAvi s’s p erm is si on to us e th e carat th e ti m e o f co ll is io n, Ch an dl er , 20 11 W L 58 64 80 8, at*9
. Edg ar Ba en a’s Geic o p ol ic y co ve redhi s u se of ano n- own edau to , pro vi de d th atsu ch us e was “ wit h t he pe rm is si on , or re as on ab ly bel ie ve d t o b e wit h t he pe rm is si on ” o f th e o wne r. Ch an dl er in st ru ct s t ha t t he bro adde fin it io n o f

“pe rm is si on ” d ev el op edin Flo rid a’s da ng ero us in st ru m en ta li ty cases is ap pl ic ab le to co nt ractua l i ns ur an ce d is pu te s, s uc h a s t he on e atha nd
. Se e Ch an dl er , 20 11 W L 58 64 80 8, at * 9. Th eref or e, if Ent erp ris e g av e it s co ns en t t o M ig ue l t o re ntth e car, t ha t co ns en t— inth e ab se nc e o f a b reac h o f cu st od y am ou nt in g t o asp eci es of
co nv ers io n o r th eft

—ex te nd edto an y

pe rs on th atMi gu el all owe d t o u se th e car . The di st ric t co urt d idno t ap pl y th is pro pe r de fin it io n o f pe rm is si on . Ins te ad , it in co rrec tl y

fou ndas am at te r of

law t ha t b ecau se Ent erp ris e d idno t g iv e ex pr es s pe rm is si on to Edg ar, Ent erp ris e d idno t co ns en t t o Ed ga r’s us e o f th e car . This fin di ng of l aw, as well as the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t i n 8fav orof Ge ic o re ga rd in g t hi s i ss ue , was i n e rro r. W e th eref or e rev ers e an d re m an d fo r pr oc eed in gs th atap pl y th e la w of Ch an dl er . 4 REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Be cause we f

ind that reve rsal and r emand a re w arr anted on the grounds above , we ne ed 4 not rea ch Appe llants’ other a rguments. 9