FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 26, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 1- 15 07 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cv -0 00 27 -EAK-TGW HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t FIRS T LEASE, INC., Co ns ol id at edPla in ti ffApp el la nt , ve rs us ZURICH AMERI CAN INSURANCE COMP ANY, 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (J un e 2 6, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Thi s i s an ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t in fav orof Zu ric h Am eri can Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny (“ Zuri ch ”), h ol di ng th atZuri ch ha s n o dut y

to de fen d o r in de m

ni fy Fir st Leas e, In c. (“ Fi rs tLea se ”). W e rev ie w de
no vo a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. Levi ns on v. Reli an ce Sta nd ar d Li fe Ins . Co. , 24 5 F .3d13 21 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when “ th ere i s n o g en ui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t is en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” F E D . R. C IV . P. 56 (a). “ A gen ui ne fact ua l i ss ue ex is ts if t he jury co ul d re tu rn a ve rd ic t fo r th e n on -m ov in g p art y .” Th oma s v. C

oo pe r Li gh ti ng , Inc
. , 50 6 F .3d13 61 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

I. App el la ntFir st Leas e was su edin Hil ls bo ro ug h C ou nt y Cir cu itCo ur t b y Howar d B ry an t, a t ru ckdri ve r, fo r pe rs on al in juri es res ul ti ng fro m

anacci de nton May 13, 2 00 6, wh il e o pe rat in g atru ckforSo ut he as t In de pe nd en t Del iv ery Serv ic es , Inc . (SEIDS). Bryantpe rfo rm edde li ve ry servi ces forSEIDS an d
en te redin to anin de pe nd en t tru ckm an ’s agr eem en t (“ ITA”) wit h S EIDS as an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or . Bry an t en te redin to a ren ta l ag reem en t wi th Fir st Leas e to
ren t a t ru ck , andhi s cl ai m ag ai ns t Fi rs tLea se was b as edon ne gl ig en t m ai nt en an ce of th attru ck . The ren ta l ag reem en t re qu ire s B ry an t t o m ai nt ai n i ns ur an ce t o

2pr ot ectFir st Leas e, as own er o f th e ren te d v eh ic le , andhi m se lf, a s o pe rat orof t he

ve hi cl e, fro m

in juri es to th irdpe rs on s. Bryantan d S EIDS are i ns ur edby Z ur ic h. App el la ntHarco Nati on al Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny (“ Harco ”), an in su rer o f Fi rs tLea se , def

en de d F irs tLea se pu rs ua ntto it s i ns ur an ce p ol ic y an d s et tl edth e
cas e. Fir st Leas e fi le d ath irdpa rty clai m ag ai ns t SEIDS forco nt ract ua l i nd em ni ty. SEIDS m ov edfor

en try of p art ia l s umm ary jud gm en t, an d t he cir cu itco ur t de te rm in edth atth e in de m ni ty clau se of t he ren ta l ag reem en t was un en fo rceabl e, si nc e Fi rs tLea se so ug htin de m ni ty for cl ai m s ar is in g fr om it s o wn n eg li ge nc e. Harco an d F irs tLea se fil eda de cl arat ory jud gm en t ac ti on in th e d is tri ctco ur t to de te rm in e th ei r ri gh ts ag ai ns t Zu ric h a s SEIDS ’s in su rer. Th e p art ie s fi le d
cro ss -m ot io ns for

su m m ary jud gm en t an d a gr eedth atth ere wer e n o m at eri al fact s in di sp ut e. Harco an d F irs tLea se arg ue d t ha t Bry an t was anag en t o f SEIDS an d th atth e Zur ic h p ol ic y

co ve redth e ren te d t ru ck an d F irs tLea se as a n a dd it io na l in su red . The co ur t fo un d t ha t Bry an t an d F irs tLea se were p art ie s t o t he ren ta l ag reem en t b utth atSEIDS was no t a p art y . The co ur t al so fou ndth atth e
un de rlyin g n eg li ge nc e su itdi d n otin vo lv e a s hi ft o f li ab il it y to Fir st Leas e. The
co ur t n ot edth atFir st Leas e co ul d b e an “ in su red ” u nd er t he Zuri ch po li cy on ly as

“ [a]nyone li ab le forth e co nduc t o f an ‘ in su red ’ de sc rib edab ov e b uton ly to t he
ex te ntof t ha t l iabi li ty.” [R. 49 at 3 8.] The co ur t d et erm in edth atFir st Leas e was 3no t v ic ari ou sl y li ab le un de r th e p ol ic y

be cau se Bry an t was no t a t ortfe as or , and th us th e st atut or il y -p erm it te d s hi ft o f li ab il it y co ve rag e d idno t ap pl y . Sim il arl y , th e co ur t fo un d t ha t Zu ric h h adno du ty to i nd em ni fy Harco forFir st Leas e’s
ne gl ig en ce t o B ry an t. II . The du ty to d efen d i s d et erm in edso le ly by refe ren ce t o t he cla im an t’s
co m pl ai nt , Hig

gi ns v. St at e Farm Fir e & Ca s. Co

. , 89 4 S o. 2 d 5 , 9– 10 (Fl a. 20 04 ), whe reas th e dut y

to in de m ni fy is de te rm in edby anal yzi ng th e fac ts of t he
cas e, St at e Far m Fir e &Ca s. Co . v. CTC Dev . Cor p. , 72 0 S o. 2 d 1 07 2, 1 07 7 n .3 (Fl a. 19 98 ). Harco an d F irs tLea se arg ue th atZuri ch ha d adu ty to d efen d a nd in de m ni fy Fir st Leas e o n t he un de rlyin g a ct io n b ecau se Bry an t was anag en t o f SEIDS. Alt ho ug h t he is su e o f ag en cy is di sp ut ed , itis no t a g en ui ne is su e o f
m at eri al factwarran ti ng rev ers al of s umm ary jud gm en t. The all eg at io ns in Bryant ’s com

pl ai ntdo no t trig ge r Zuri ch ’s du ty to d efen d F irs tLea se be cau se th e al le ge d i nju redpa rty was Bryant , no t a t hi rdpa rty. A s re qu ire d b y th e ren ta l ag reem en t, Bry an t o bt ai ne d l iabi li ty cov erag e, th ro ug h Zu ric h, “ fo r in juri es to th e pr op erty an d p ers on , in cl ud in g d eat h, o f Thi rdPers on s, re su lt in g fr om th e
own ers hi p, u se , op erat io n, o r m ai nt en an ce o f th e Veh ic le .” [Ren ta l Ag reem en t, R.

423 -7 (Exh . G).] Becaus e Bryant , no t a thi rdpa rty, was al le ge dl y in jure d, an d Fi rs tLea se was t he all eg edto rtf eas or , Zuri ch ha s n o dut y to de fen d. Fo r th e sa m e rea so ns , Zuri ch ha s n o dut y to in de m ni fy Harco for Fi rs tLea se ’s neg li ge nc e to Bry an t. Zur ic h’s dut y to in de m ni fy on ly cov ers li ab il it y fo r bo di ly inju ry

to th irdpa rti es , andBry an t was a pa rty to t he ITA andren ta l ag reem en t, n ota th irdpa rty. Acco rd in gl y , forth e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco ur t’s gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.

5