[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 86 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cv -0 03 93 -RBD- JB T AXIS INSURANCE COM PANY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us FARAH & FARAH, P.A., EDDIE FARAH, MIC HAEL D. MARRESE, Defen da nt s- App el lant s.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 18 , 20 13 ) Befo re J ORDAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es , andALBRITTON,* Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ *Honora ble Will iam H. Albritton, I I I , United States District J udg e for the Middle District of Alabama , sitti ngby

designation. Case: 11-15867 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 1 of 6PER CURI AM:

Thi s ca se in vo lv es co ns tru ct io n o f anin su ran ce p ol ic y (in cl ud in g the ap pl ic at io n t he refo r) u nd er Fl or id a la w. See Aut o- Owner s In s. Co . v. An de rs on , 75 6 S o.2 d 2 9, 3 4 (F la . 20 00 ) (“ Fl or id a la w pro vi de s t ha t i ns ur an ce co ntract s ar e
co ns tru edinacco rd an ce wi th th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e p ol ic ie s as ba rg ai ne d fo r by th e p art ie s.”) W e h av e h adth e b en efi t o f or al arg um en t, an d h av e car efu ll y stud ie d th e b rie fs an d re le va ntpa rts of t he reco rd . W e co nc lu de th atth e jud gm en t o f th e di st ric t co urt s ho ul d b e aff irmed. Bec au se th e rel ev an t fa ct s wer e am pl y setforth inth e d is tri ctco urt’s Ord er,
an d d is cu ss edful ly at th e v ery rece ntora l ar gu m en t, we n eedno t re pe atth em he re. W e tu rnimm ed ia te ly to the rel ev an t ar gu m en ts . App el la nt s (h erei n re ferr edto as th e “ Fi rm ”) ar gu e th atth e te rm “pe rs on s p ro po se d fo r co ve rag e” i n t he App li cat io n do es no t i nc lu de Abb ot t, wh erea s t he term “ In su red ” as de fin edinth e Po li cy it se lf do es in cl ud e Abb ot t. Thu s, the Firm arg ue s tha t i t was no t re qu ire d t o i nqui re o f Abb ot t wi th res pe ctto hi s kno wled ge of p ot en ti al cla im s, an d t hu s Ab bo tt ’s kn owl ed ge of t he po te nt ia l cl ai m by the Turn ers do es no t fa ll withi n t he ex cl us io n th atap pl ie s wi th res pe ctto po te nt ia l cl ai m s wh ic h wer e actua ll y kn ownby any In su red , bu t n otrev eal edinth e App li cat io n. Th e si gn ifi can t p ro bl em with the Fi rm ’s arg um en t i s t ha t i ts pre m is e – th atth e sc op e o f th e te rm “pe rs on s p ro po se d
2 Case: 11-15867 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 2 of 6fo r co ve rag e” i n t he App li cat io n d oe s n otin cl ud e Abb ot t –is fla wed . Con tra ry to th e Fi rm ’s arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atth e te rm “pe rs on s p ro po se d fo r co ve rag e” i n th e App li cat io n d oe s i nc lu de Abb ot t. The App li cat io n i nc lu de d t he fol lo win g i ns tru ct io n, upo n wh ic h t he Firm rel ie s: [Y]ou h ereb y

rep res en t tha t yourlaw fi rm an d any pers on pro po se d fo r co ve rag e (“ th e In su red ”), aft er i nqui ry of a ll pa rtn ers , off

ic ers an d m an ag ers of t he Ins ur ed , is no t awa re o f an y cla im s ag ai ns t the Ins ur ed orcir cu m st an ces , in ci de nt s, d is pu te s o r fee pro bl em s t ha t m ay gi ve ris e to a cl ai m

ag ai ns t the Ins ur ed , othe r th anth os e d is cl os edinth e ap pl ic at io n. W e co nc lu de th atth e Fi rm co ul d n otha ve reas on ab ly con cl ud edth atth e li stof t he Fi rm ’s pre se ntm em

be rs inth e App li cat io n e xh au st edth e sc op e o f th e “pe rs on s pr op os edforco ve rag e” re ferr edto inth e ab ov e quo ta ti on . By th e v ery na tu re o f a cl ai m s- m ad e p ol ic y , th e Po li cy wou ldco ve r cl ai m s m ad e dur in g the Po li cy pe rio d at tri bu tabl e to th e n eg li ge ntco nduc t o f a p rev io us ly affil ia te d l awy er. The refo re, in qu iry with res pe ctto awaren es s o f po te nt ia l cl ai m s wh ic h wo ul d b e co ve redby th e Po li cy

(ab ou t wh ic h t he ab ov e quo te d p ro vi si on is ob vi ou sl y refe rri ng ) wou ld
ne ces sa ril y

in cl ud e in qu iry dir ect edno t o nl y to cu rren t m em

be rs of t he Firm , bu t al so in qu iry dir ect edto pre vi ou sl y affi li at edlawyers. Thu s, the on ly reaso nabl e 1

The F irm mischara cterizes the above quoted pr ovision of the Application as 1 instructing that inquiry

(about potential c laims) need be direc ted only to eac h curr ent member

of 3 Case: 11-15867 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 3 of 6in te rp ret at io n o f th e te rm “pe rs on pro po se d fo r co ve rag e” i nc lu de s Ab bo tt , as d oe s th e d efi ni ti on of t he term “ In su red ” inth e Po li cy . Accor di ng ly, if t he re i s an y di ffer en ce i n t he de fin it io n o f th e te rm “pe rs on pro po se d fo r co ve rag e” i n t he App li cat io n, o n t he on e h an d, an d, o n t he ot he r ha nd , th e d efi ni ti on of t he term

“ In su red ” in th e Po li cy , any suc h d iff eren ce i s n otrel ev an t i n t hi s ca se be cau se bo th term s i nc lu de Abb ot t. Mo reo ve r, th ere i s n othi ng inth e la ng ua ge of t he App li cat io n tha t t ie s t he li st of cu rren t l awy ers of t he Firm to th e sc op e o f “pe rs on s p ro po se d fo r co ve rag e”; th e in st ru ct io n m erel y

ask s fo r a l is t o f al l cu rren t l awy ers , to wit : Pro vi de th e n am es of a ll lawyers wh o a re p res en tl y off ic ers , partn ers , an d e m pl oyed l awy ers , of c ou ns el s o r ret ire d p artne rs of t he App li can t an d c om pl et e th e in fo rm at io n re qu es te d fo r eac h l awy er. The re i s n ot hi ng inth atlan gu ag e th atsu gg es ts th atth e li stof c urren t l awy ers
ex haus ts th e sc op e o f “pe rs on s p ro po se d fo r co ve rag e.” 2
the Fir m, and the F irm infers f

rom that that only

such cur rent membe rs ar e “pe rsons proposed f or cover ag e” whose knowledg e of pote ntial claims will trigg er the exclusion. C ontrary to the Firm’s mischa

rac terization, the above quote d provision does not limi t the appropriate inquiry to curr ent member s of the F irm. Rather, the a bove quoted pr ovision inst ructs the a pplicant to inquire of “ all partne rs, offic ers, a nd manag ers of

the Insured.” The instruction is equally silent with respec t to inquiry

of the c urre nt members of the Firm (othe r than off icer s, partner s, and manag ers) and inquiry

of pre viously

aff iliated lawyers. The instruction obviously assumed that the “of fice rs, par tners, and ma

nag ers” of the F irm would make the a ppropriateinquiries – i.e. inquiries of per sons whose neg lige nt conduct could g ive rise to a c laim, including obviously not only curr ent member s of the F irm but also previously aff iliated members. The mer e fa ct that the Application asks for a list of lawyers pr esently with the 2 Firm doe s not have the significanc e urg ed upon us by the Fir m. Indeed, the Application also asks 4 Case: 11-15867 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 4 of 6Bec au se Abb ot t was bo th a “pe rs onpro po se d fo r co ve rag e” as refe rredto in

th e App li cat io n, an d a ls o a n “ In su red ,” as de fin edto inth e Po li cy de fin it io n, th ere

3 is no di ffer en ce i n t he two cat eg or ie s t ha t i s re le vantinth is cas e. Becaus e Abb ot t cl earl y ha d kno wled ge of apro babl e m al pr act ic e cl ai m be fo re the in cep ti on of t he Po li cy on Ju ne 19 , 20 09 , an d b ecau se Abb ot t was bo th a “pe rs on pro po se d fo r 4

about non-lawyer e mploy ees a nd prede cessor

firms. For the first time on appe al, the F irm argues that Abbott was not an “ Insured”as 3 define d in the policy

beca use the F irm is org anized as a f or-pr ofit corpor ation, and for -prof it corpor ations have no statutorily define d office s labeled a s “mana g ers” or “me mbers.” T he F irm argues for the first time on appe al that, when the Policy define s an “I

nsured” as including“any lawyer pr eviously

aff iliated ... as a pa

rtner, of fice r, direc tor, stockholder- employee, a ssociate, manag er, me mber or sa laried e mploy ee,” the Policy ’s re fer ence s to partner , etc., r efe r only to the statutorily define d office s in the various possible corpor ate a nd non-cor

porate statutory structure s. Thus, the Firm a rgues that, as a

for- profit cor

poration, there are no statutorily define d office s labeled a s “mana g er” or “me mber,” and that the Policy ’s re fer ence to those office s ref ers exclusively

to the statutorily

define d office s of “mana g er” and “me mber” in limi ted liability companies. B eca

use this argument was not made with sufficient c larity in the district court, we hold that the argument is waived. Moreove r, the F irm’s argument is wholly without merit. The Policy languag e does not purport to limit i ts reac h to narrow , statutory definitions of prec ise offic es. In addition, even on appea l, the Firm’s briefs do not point to an appropriate statutory definition of ea ch of the office s listed in the Pol icy , and one or more doe s not have such a statutory definition (e.g ., there is no statutory definition of “a ssociate” ). The F irm’s position that, as a corpor ation, it cannot have a “mana g er” or “me mber” is a wholly unrea sonable interpr etation of the Policy . As the district court pointed out, putting the argument in the mouth of the insuranc e compa ny demonstrates how unrea sonable it is. See D.C. at 15, n.10 (imag ining the r eac tion to the argument if Axi s had tried to exclude Abbott from the def inition of an “Insured.” ). We agree with the district court that “no rea sonable mind . . . could find that Mr. Abbott wa s not a manag er of the per sonal injury

and wrong ful death are a of the prac tice or a member of

that firm” ( ref

erring to the pr edec essor fir m of Fa rah, F ara h & A bbott, P.A.). He ha d such knowledg e at lea st by April 20, 2009, when he met with, and so 4 advised the Tur

ners. 5 Case: 11-15867 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 5 of 6co ve rag e” an d a n “ In su red ,” th e p rio r kn owl ed ge ex cl us io n was tri gg ered
.

Acco rd in gl y , th ere i s n o c ov erag e u nd er the Po li cy forcla im s ar is in g o utof t he
un de rlyin g Tu rn er l it ig at io n, an d t he ap pe ll ee-i ns ur an ce co m pa ny is n otob li ga te d to de fen d o r in de m

ni fy th e Fi rm inth e u nd erl y in g Tu rn er l it ig at io n. 5 Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFFIR MED.

Other issues r aised on a

ppeal by defe ndants-appe llants are e ither without merit or 5 moot in li ght of our dec ision. 6

Case: 11-15867 Date Filed: 01/18/2013 Page: 6 of 6