FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 19, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 60 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 05 86 -HLA-MCR THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE COM PANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us INDUSTRIAL STEEL FABRICATORS, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s, GEORGES BAHRI, as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Mi ch el Abi Nasr , dec eas ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 19 , 20 10 )Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: On Ap ril 18 , 20 06 , Mic he l Ab i Nas r was ki ll edina co ns tru ct io n a cci de nt whe n a1,2 00 po un d s te el be am fel l o n h is he ad . His e st at e subs eque nt ly file d s ui t ag ai ns t In du st ria l St eel Fab ric at or s, In c. (“ ISF” ) an d i ts subc on tra ct orA&K Erect or s, In c. (“ A&K”) fo r ne gl ig en ce. Pu rs ua ntto ISF’s g en eral li ab il it y in su ran ce p ol ic y , th e Bu rli ng to n In su ran ce Co m pany (“ Bu rli ng to n” ) is in de m ni fy in g a ndde fen di ng ISF i n t ha t l aws ui t t o t he ex te ntof I SF’s co ve rag e un de r th e p ol ic y . The pa rti es di sp ut e th e p ol ic y ’s cov erag e li m itfor Nasr ’s acci de nt . Bu rli ng to n b el ie ve s t ha t the li m itwas re du cedfro m $1 m il li on to $2 5,0 00 be cau se ISF fa il edto requi re A&K t o o bt ai n, m ai nt ai n, an d s ub m itcert ifi edpro of of i ts
own in su ran ce p ol ic y

with c ov erag e an d l im it s o f li ab il ity at l eas t equa l t o t ho se in ISF’s p ol ic y

with B ur li ng to n. To ob ta ina de cl arat ory jud gm en t re ga rd in g t he
co ve rag e li m it , Bur li ng to n i ni ti at eda se parat e su itag ai ns t IS F, A&K, an d t he
es ta te . Each o f th e p art ie s i n t ha t ca se , exc ep t fo r A&K ag ai ns t wh om a de fau lt jud gm en t was en te red , m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d
su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Bu rli ng to n, a d eci si on ap pe al edon ly by Nasr ’s
es ta te . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng . 2I.

W e rev ie w de no vo a di stric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, ap pl y in g th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s t ha t g ov ern edth e d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s. Pen le y v. Esl in ge r, 60 5 F .3d84 3, 8 48 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). In d oi ng so , we wou ldno rm al ly
ex am in e th e rec or d t o d et erm in e whe th er a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts , bu t h ere t he pa rti es st ip ul at edth atth ere a re n o triabl e is su es of f actan d wai ve d th ei r ri gh t t o ajury tri al . There fo re, we n eedon ly det erm in e whe th er the di st ric t
co urt p ro pe rly ent eredjud gm en t i n fa vo r of Bu rli ng to n b as edon it s i nt erp ret at io n of th e ISF i ns ur an ce p ol ic y . See Herc ul es Bu m pe rs , Inc . v. Fi rs t St at e In s. Co ., 86 3 F .2d83 9, 8 41 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Thi s d ecl arat ory

jud gm en t ac ti on was b ro ug hton th e b as is of d iv ers ity juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2. Th e d is tri ctco urt i m pl ic it ly det erm in edth at Fl or id a la w con tro ls Bu rli ng to n’s l eg al ob li ga ti on s u nd er i ts in su ran ce p ol ic ie s, an d t he pa rti es ha ve no t o bjec te d t o tha t d et erm in at io n o n app eal . Accor di ng ly, we ap pl y Flo rid a la w inan al y zi ng th e p ol ic y ’s term s. See LaTorr e v . Con n. M ut . Life Ins . Co., 3 8 F .3d53 8, 5 40 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (“ Fl or id a adhe res to th e tr ad it io na l
ru le th atth e le ga l ef

fect s o f te rm s o f th e in su ran ce p ol ic y an d ri gh ts an d ob li ga ti on s o f pe rs on s i ns ur edth ereu nd er ar e to be de te rm in edby the law o f th e 3st at e whe re the po li cy was i ss ue d.” ) (ci ti ng W il so n v . Ins . Co. o f N. Am ., 41 5 S o. 2d75 4, 7 55 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 82 ); s ee al so Cav ic v. Gran d B ah am a Dev . Co., 70 1 F .2d87 9, 8 82 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (“ Bec au se th e p art ie s d idno t ra is e an y co nf li ct of laws is su e in th e d is tri ctco urt an d d o n otrai se iton ap pe al , un de r ap pl ic ab le
co nf li ctof l aws pri nc ip le s t he law o f th e fo ru m ([Fl or id a]) wou ldgo ve rnth e subs ta nt iv e is su es du e to th e ab se nc e o f fac ts jus ti fy in g t he ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w of so m e o th er jur is di ct io n.” (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng Mo nt go m ery W ard& Co . v. Pac . Ind em . Co., 5 57 F.2d51 , 58 n.1 1 (3 rdCir . 19 77 )). II. Und er Fl or id a la w, “ in su ran ce co nt ract s m us t b e co ns tru edinacco rd an ce with t he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e p ol ic y .” Swire Pac. Ho ld in gs , Inc . v. Zur ic h In s. Co ., 84 5 S o. 2 d 1 61 , 16 5 (F la . 20 03 ). Bu t i f th e rel ev an t p ol ic y lan gu ag e is
am bi gu ou s t he n e xtrin si c ev id en ce o f th e p art ie s’ in te nt io ns m ay be in tro du cedto
ex pl ai n t he am

bi gu it y . Rein m an , Inc . v. Pre ferr edMu t. In s. Co ., 51 3 S o. 2 d 7 88 , 78 8 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 87 ). Am bi gu ity ex is ts if t he po li cy

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,” su chas “ on e p ro vi di ng co ve rag e an d t he an ot he r li m it in g c ov erag e.” 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 ). In m ak in g t ha t d et erm in at io n, the po li cy as awho le
m us t b e ex am in edan d o rd in ary ru le s o f co nt ractco ns tru ct io n app ly. Swire , 84 5 4So . 2dat 1 66 . An am bi gu ou s p ro vi si on , parti cu la rly a pro vi si on th atex cl ud es or li m it s co ve rag e, is li be ral ly con st ru edinfav or of t he in su redan d s tri ct ly agai ns t th e in su rer wh o p rep aredth e p ol ic y inord er t o a ch ie ve th e g reat es t p os si bl e co ve rag e. Flo res v. Al ls ta te Ins . Co., 8 19 So . 2d74 0, 7 44 (Fl a. 20 02 ). A “ warra nt y

en do rs em en t” inth e in su ran ce p ol ic y un de rwri tt enby Bu rli ng to n i s t he so le foc us of t he pa rti es ’ di sp ut e. Thaten do rs em en t re du ces ISF’s co ve rag e fro m

$1 m il li onto $2 5,0 00 pe r oc cu rren ce i f ISF b reac he s t wo warra nt ie s re ga rd in g c on tra ct or s:

WARRANTY - INSURANCE FOR LEGAL LIABILITY

(CONTRACTORS) Thi s en do rs em en t m od ifi es in su ran ce p ro vi de d u nd er the fol lo win g: COMM ERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART 1. In co ns id erat io n of ou r ag reei ng to to [si c] iss ue th is po li cy , y ou ag ree, co ve na nt an d warra nt th at y ou requi re witho ut e x c ep ti on th at th os e who un de rta ke a job fo r or in y o u r b e h a l f ob ta in an d m ai nt ai n in su ran ce, du rin g th e du rat io n of th e job , fo r le ga l l i ab i l i ty ari si ng ou t of th ei r op erat io ns with co ve rag e an d li m it s of li ab il it y equa l to or gr eat er th an th os e pr ov id ed by th is po li cy . 2. Y o u fu rth er warra nt th at y ou ob ta in [certi fie d pr oo f or t h e equi va le n t ] o f su ch in su ran ce pr io r to co m m en cem en t of an y work p erfo rm edforor i n your be ha lf. 3. Fo r an y “ oc cu rren ce” ari si ng ou t of y ou r fai lu re to co m pl y with th e warra nt ie s in Para gr ap h 1 an d 2 ab ov e th e li m it s of in su ran ce

5[are reduc ed as se t fo rth in th e sc he du le ]. The se li mit s are in cl us iv e o f an d a re n otinad di ti on to th e li mit s b ei ng rep la ced
. The po li cy

de fin es “ oc cu rren ce” a s “ anacci de nt , in cl ud in g c on ti nu ou s o r rep eat edex po su re t o s ub st an ti al ly the same gen eral ha rm fu l co nd it io ns .” Notsurp ris in gl y , th e p art ie s ag ree t ha t the “ oc cu rren ce” i n t hi s ca se is Nas r’s de ath. Th ey

als o a gr ee tha t A&K, as ISF’s s ub co nt ract or , di d n ot ha ve th e requi si te in su ran ce p ol ic y an d t ha t IS F n ev er o bt ai ne d c ert ifi ed pr oo f of in su ran ce fr om

A&K. Inco ns tru in g p arag rap h thr ee o f th e warra nt y en do rs em en t, Nas r’s
es ta te urg es us to stric tl y

adhe re t o t he po li cy ’s exp li ci t l an gu ag e in su ch a way th atst rai ns lo gi c. It a rg ue s t ha t the “ ari si ng ou t o f” l an gu ag e requi res Nas r’s de ath t o b e cau sa ll y co nn ect edto ISF’s b reac h o f th e two warran ti es . Und er thi s i nt erp ret at io n, the co ve rag e li m it at io n wo ul d n otap pl y be cau se ISF’s fa il ur e to requi re A&K t o o bt ai n, m ai nt ai n, an d s ub m itcert ifi edpro of of th e requi redin su ran ce p ol ic y di d n otcau se Nasr ’s dea th . The es ta te ackno wled ge s t ha t the en do rs em en t m ak es li tt le sen se gi ve n t hi s in te rp ret at io n b uturg es th atBu rli ng to n s ho ul d h av e b ro ug hta refo rm at io n act io n i f itwant edto av oi d t he effe ctof t he pro vi si on ’s “pl ai n, ea si ly
un de rs ta nd ab le Eng li sh .”

6W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt an d B ur li ng to n tha t the est at e’s

in te rp ret at io n i s n otreas on ab le . The l im it at io n p ro vi si on fol lo ws the two
warra nt ie s an d t hu s m

us t b e rea d i n c on

jun ct io n wi th th em . No rea so nabl e in te rp ret at io n o f al l thr ee p ro vi si on s i n c on te xtwou ldrequi re a ca us al
co nn ect io n b etweenth e o ccu rren ce an d t he bre achof warran ti es . To ho ld ot he rwis e wou ldha ve us acce ptth e il lo gi cal pro po si ti on th atfat al acci de nt s co ul d re su ltfro m

ISF’s fai lu re t o e ns ur e th atit s co nt ract or s h adth e requi si te in su ran ce. Rat he r, th e o nl y reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f th e en do rs em en t i s th atth e uni ns ur ed(orun de rin su red ) subc on tra ct orem pl oyed b y ISF, h ere A&K, m us t s om eh ow b e im

pl ic at edinth e acc id en t o r oc cu rren ce. Bec au se we fin d t he co nt ractua l l an gu ag e in pa rag rap h t hr ee su sc ep ti bl e to on ly one reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n, tha t p arag rap h i s n ot
am bi gu ou s an d we n eedno t co ns id er an y ex tri ns ic ev id en ce. See Accel erat io n Nat ’l Serv . Cor p. v . Bri ck el l Fi n. Se rv s. M ot orClub, In c., 54 1 So . 2d73 8, 7 39 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 89 ) (“ Befo re ex tri ns ic m at te rs m ay be
co ns id eredby a cou rt i n i nt erp ret in g aco ntract , th e wor ds us edon th e fac e of th e co nt ractm

us t b e am bi gu ou s o r un cl ear.” ). Bu t ev enif we wer e in cl in edto do so , ou r co nc lu si onwou ldrem ai n u nc ha ng ed . Not
su rp ris in gl y , th e es ta te ha s n otsetforth a si ng le pi ece o f ev id en ce 7su gg es ti ng th atISF an d B ur li ng to n i nt en de d t he reduc ti on inco ve rag e to

ap pl y on ly if th e acc id en t was so m eh ow ca us al lyco nn ect edto a br each of th e warra nt ie s. No tabl y , whi le ISF’s g en eral m an ag er p erh ap s d idno t ap pr eci at e th e eff

ectof the warran ty end or se m en t wh enhe si gn edan id en ti cal ve rs io n i n t he pre vi ou s year’s po li cy , he h as admit te d t ha t the la ng ua ge ha s “be co m e cl ear a s ra in ” in th atth ere i s “ [n ]o am bi gu it y at a ll .” W it ho utan y

ev id en ce re fu ti ng th e in es cap ab le co nc lu si on th atev enISF’s ge ne ral m an ag er u lt im at el y dre w, a reas on ab le tri er o f fac t s ur el y co ul d n ot
co nc lu de ot he rwis e. The est at e al so arg ue s, i n t he alt ern at iv e, th atth ere s ho ul d n otbe an y reduc ti on inco ve rag e b ecau se ISF d idno t b reac h t he warran ti es in pa rag rap hs on e an d t wo. To s up po rt i ts arg um en t, the est at e u rg es th atth e warra nt ie s s ho ul d n otbe co ns tru edas c reat in g p ro sp ect iv e o bl ig at io ns bu t rathe r as on ly repre se nt at io ns of p res en t fa ct s g iv enth atth ey are wri tt enin th e p res en t, n otfutur e, te ns e. Und er thi s i nt erp ret at io n, a b reac h o f th e warra nt ie s co ul d o nl y

oc cu r if ISF, atth e ti m e th e p ol ic y was “ ap pl ie d fo r an d i ss ue d,” di d n otha ve a st an da rdop erat in g p ro cedur e requi rin g i ts
co nt ract or s t o o bt ai n a ndsubm itpro of of t he requi si te in su ran ce co ve rag e. Bec au se ISF h adsu ch a pr oc edur e atth atti m e, th e es ta te says th atISF’s 8in adve rte ntfai lure t o fo ll ow t ha t p ro cedur e wit h re sp ectto A&K fo ll owi ng

th e u nd erwri ti ng of I SF’s in su ran ce co nt ractis irr el ev an t an d c ou ldno t h av e res ul te d i n abre ach of t he warran ti es . The est at e’s arg um en t i m pl or es us to ig no re al l co nt ex t an d l im itour at te nt io n t o o nl y

th e wor ds itsel ect s t o m ak e it s ca se , nam el y th e o ne s writ te n i n p res en t t en se . Cou rts , ho wev er, “ m ay no t i so la te a si ng le
se nt en ce o r gr oup o f wor ds inanin su ran ce p ol ic y an d re adth e is ol at edpa rt al on e an d apa rt f

ro m ot he r pr ov is io ns ; the go al is to arri ve at areas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f th e en ti re p ol ic y to acco m pl is h i ts st at edm ean in g a nd pu rp os e.” Bro wn v . Trave le rs Ins . Co., 6 49 So . 2d91 2, 9 14 –9 5 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 95 ). Whe n re ad in g t he warran ti es inco nt ex t, the y cle arl y crea te pr os pe ct iv e o bl ig at io ns rathe r th anrep res en t ex is ti ng fact s. Bu rli ng to n’s ob li ga ti on to pro vi de $1 m il li on inco ve rag e wit ho utany reduc ti on was co nd it io na l o n IS F requi rin g i ts subc on tra ct or s t o h av e th e requi si te in su ran ce an d o bt ai ni ng pro of of tha t co ve rag e “pr io r to co m m en cem en t o f
an y work .” If th e ex is te nc e o f a s ta nd ardop erat in g p ro cedur e to th is effe ct whe n the po li cy

was i ss ue d was su ffi ci en t, the re wo ul d b e n o n eedforth e po li cy to sp el l o utdi ffer en t co ve rag e li m it s d ep en di ng on whet he r ISF 9co m

pl ie d wi th th e warra nt ie s i n t he co nt ex t o f a p art ic ul ar ac ci de nt . In o th er wor ds , th e warra nt ie s h adto be pro sp ect iv e o bl ig at io ns or e ls e th e lang ua ge in pa rag rap h t hr ee re ga rd in g “ oc cu rren ces ” wou ldbe supe rfl uo us . Und er th e es ta te ’s in te rp ret at io n, the reduc ti on inco ve rag e wou ldap pl y if t he
warra nt ie s wer e u ntru e whe n t he po li cy was i ss ue d re ga rd le ss of wh at pa rti cu la r oc cu rren ce l at er g av e ri se to co ve rag e. Thatin te rp ret at io n i s un reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e en do rs em en t as a who le . W e th eref or e reject th e es ta te ’s arg um en t tha t the pro vi si on is am bi gu ou s s o a s t o re qu ire li be ral
co ns tru ct io n o f th e p ro vi si oninfav orof the in su red
. 1 Fo r th es e rea so ns , we AFFIRM th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng Bu rli ng to n’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

The e state urg es us to consider tha t I SF’s policy

is a rene wal fr om the previous year and 1 in that y ear

I SF’s policy

contained not only

the same w arr anty

endorse ment but also a conf licting endorse ment called the “Contrac tors Special Conditions.” That endorse ment contained vir tually the same pr ovisions as the warr anty endorse ment but used the future tense a nd did not reduce cover ag e in the eve nt of a bre ach of the provisions. The only way to resolve this conflict, the estate sa y s, is to int erpr et the wa

rra nty endorse ment as only

requiringI SF to have a

standard operating pr ocedur e whe n the policy is applied for a

nd issued. The e state urg es us to g ive the war ranty endorse ment in the policy here the same me aning
. Even if we wer e inclined to conside r this extrinsic evidenc e, the e state’s re solution of the conflict doe s not work a r easona ble re conciliation. As discussed a bove, it is unreasona

ble to construe the war

ranty endorse ment as cr eating

no prospec tive obligations even though it fails to use the futur e tense . In any event, the Contra ctors Specia l Condit ions endorseme nt is irreleva nt g iven that it has bee n remove d from the policy at issue. See He rcule s Bumper s, Inc., 863 F .2d at 842 (“It is a basic tene t of insuranc e law that eac h time an insuranc e contr act is re newe d, a separ ate a nd distinct poli cy

comes into exist ence .”).

10