FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 00- 13811

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 3 - 0 1 0 9 0 - CV - O RL- 1 9 C N A T I O N A L R A I L R O A D P A S S E N G E R C O R P O R A T I O N ( A M T R A K ) , C S X T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , I N C ., P l ai n t i ffs-C ro ss-D efen d an t s-C o u n t er- D efen d an t sC ross -A pp el l ant s- C ross -A pp el l ee , A M E R I C A N H O M E A S S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , f .u .b .o . S te w a rt a n d S te v e n s o n S e rv ic e s , I n c ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t- C r o s s - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O U N T R E E T R A N S P O R T A N D R I G G I N G , I N C ., D e f e n d a n t- C r o s s - D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , K I S S I M M E E U T I L I T Y A U T H O R I T Y , D e f e n d a n t- C r o s s - C la im a n t- C r o s s - D e f e n d a n tC ount e r - C l a i m a nt - C ount e r - D e f e nda nt - T hi r dP arty- P l ai nt i ff

-T hi rd-P arty- D ef

endant -A pp el l ee C r o s s - A p p e llan t, W O K O T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , B L A C K A N D V E A T C H , E T A L ,2 D efen d an t s-C ro ss-C l ai m an t s-C ro ss-D efen d an t sC ount e r - C l a i m a nt s - C ount e r - D e f e nda nt s - T hi r dP arty-P l ai n t i ffs-T h i rd -P arty-D efen d an t sA p p e lle e s , F L O R I D A M U N I C I P A L P O W E R A G E N C Y , D efen d an t -C ro ss-C l ai m an t s-C ro ss-D efen d an t sC ount e r - C l a i m a nt - C ount e r - D e f e nda nt - T hi r dP arty- P l ai nt i ff

-T hi rd-P arty- D ef

endant -A pp el l ee C r o s s - A p p e llan t, G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C C O M P A N Y , I N C ., C on sol i dat ed D ef

endant -T hi rd-P arty D ef endant A p p e lle e - C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, S T E W A R T A N D S T E V E N S O N S E R V I C E S , I N C ., M o v a n t- C r o s s - A p p e lla n t.

____________________________________________________ 9 4 - Cv - 9 7 6 - O r l - 1 9 C: A M E R I C A N H O M E A S S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , f .u .b .o . S te w a rt a n d S te v e n s o n S e rv ic e s , I n c ., P la in tif f - C o u n te r - D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lla n tC r o s s - A p p e lle e , v ersu s N A T I O N A L R A I L R O A D P A S S E N G E R C O R P O R A T I O N ( A M T R A K ) , C S X T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , I N C ., E T A L , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s - C r o s s - A p p e lla n ts ,3

R O U N T R E E T R A N S P O R T A N D R I G G I N G , I N C ., D e f e n d a n t- C r o s s - D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , K I S S I M M E E U T I L I T Y A U T H O R I T Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e - C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, F L O R I D A M U N I C I P A L P O W E R A G E N C Y , M o v a n t- A p p e lle e - C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C C O ., M o v a n t- A p p e lle e - C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, S T E W A R T A N D S T E V E N S O N S E R V I C E S , I N C ., M o v a n t- C r o s s - A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 00- 13986

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 93- 01090- C V - O R L - 19C N A T IO N A L R A IL R O A D P A S S E N G E R C O R P O R A T IO N (A M T R A K ), C S X T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , I N C ., P la in tif f s - C r o s s - D e f

e n d a n ts - C o u n te r - D e f

e n d a n ts , ve r s us R O U N T R E E T R A N S P O R T A N D R I G G I N G , I N C ., D ef endant -C ross -D ef

endant -A pp el l ee ,Honora ble Richard W. Goldberg , Judg e, U.S. Court of International Trade , sitti ngby * designation. 4 KI S S I MM E E UT I L I T Y A UT HO R I T Y, D ef endant -C ross -C l ai m ant -C ross -D ef endant C o u n te r - C la im a n t- C o u n te r - D e f e n d a n t- T h ir d - P a rty

- P la in tif f - T h ir d - P a rty - D e f

e n d a n t, WOKO T R AN S P OR T AT I ON , D e f e nda nt - C r os s - C l a i m a nt - C r os s - D e f e nda nt - C oun t er-C l ai m an t -C o u n t er- D efen d an t - T h i rd -P artyP la in tif f - T h ir d - P a rty - D e f

e n d a n t, BL ACK A ND VEATCH, ET AL, D e f e nda nt - C r os s - C l a i m a nt - C r os s - D e f e nda nt - C oun t er-C l ai m an t -C o u n t er- D efen d an t -T h i rd - P artyP la in tif f - T h ir d - P a rty - D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, F L OR I DA MUNI C I P AL P OWE R AG E NC Y, D ef endant -C ross -C l ai m ant s- C ross -D ef endant sC o u n te r - C la im a n t- C o u n te r - D e f e n d a n tT h ir d - P a rty - P la in tif

f - T h ir d - P a rty - D e f

e n d a n t, G E N E R A L E L E C T R I C C O ., T hi rd-P arty- D ef endant -A pp el l ee .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 1, 2005) B ef ore T JO F L A T and B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and G O L D B E R G , Judg e. *5

B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: T h is c a s e r e tu rn s to u s f o rd is p o s itio n f

r o m th e S up r e m e C o u rt o f F lo r id a , to w hi ch w e c ert i fi ed four qu es t i on s of F l ori da st at e l aw . S ee N at ’ l R . R . P as se ng er C orp. v. R ou ntre e T ransp. & R i gg i ng , Inc. , 28 6 F . 3d 12 33 , 12 58 , 12 69 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). B ased o n th e F l o ri d a S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s resp o n ses t o th e cert i fi ed q u est i o n s, se e A m . H om e A ss urance Co . v. N at ’ l R . R . P as se ng erC orp. , __S o. 2d __(F l a. 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is p o s itio n o f th e c e rtif

ie d is s u e s is A FFI R M ED . I . B AC KG RO UN D T hi s app ea l ar i se s f

rom a s er i es of l aw sui t s thatw er e f i l ed af t era pas se ng er tr a i n of the N a t i ona l R a i l r oa d P a s s e nge rC orpor a t i on ( “ A m tr a k” ) c ol l i de d w i th a haul erri g o w ned and op er at ed by R ou ntre e T ranspo rtand R i gg i ng , Inc. ( “ R ountr e e ” ) on r a i l r oa d tr a c ks ow ne d byC S X T r a ns port a t i on, I nc . ( “ C S X ” ) a nd l i ce nsed t o K i ss i m m ee U t i l i ty A utho ri ty ( “ K U A ”) . W hi l e the fa ct s of the ca se ar e f ul l y de s c r i be d i n ourpr e vi ous opi ni on, s e e N a t ’ l R . R . P a s s e nge rC orp. , 286 F . 3d a t1237- 42, w e w i l l r e c ounthe r e r e l e va ntf a c t s t o pr ovi de c ont e xtf orour di sposi t i on of the ca se . K U A , am uni c i pa l a ge nc y c ha r ge d w i th c ons truc t i ng a nd ope r a t i ng the e l e c tr i c a l ut i l i t i e s of

the C i ty of

K i s s i m m e e , F l or i da , w a s r e s pons i bl e f orthe6

co n stru ctio n o f th e C an e I slan d P o w erP lan t (“P lan t”). T o fin an ce th e P lan t’ s construct i on , K U A partnere d w i th the F l ori da M un i ci pal P ow erA gency ( “F M P A ” ) , w h ic h a c q u ir e d a5 0 % o w n e r s h ip in te r e s t in th e P la n t a s ar e s u lt o f its part i ci pat i on . B ec ause pedestri an and v ehi cul arac ce ss t o the P l antw ou l d requi re c r os s i ng r a i l r oa d tr a c ks ow ne d byC S X , K U A e nt e r e d i nt o aP r i va t e R oa d G r a de C r o s s i n g Ag r e e m e n t( “ C r o s s i n g Ag r e e m e n t ” ) wi th C S X i n wh i c h C S X g a v e KU A a licen se to co n stru ct, u se , an d m ain tain a p riv ate r o ad g ra d e c ro ss in g o v erC S X ’s r a i l r oa d tr a c ks . I n e xc ha nge f orthe l i c e ns e , K U A a gr e e d i n the C r os s i ng A gr e e m e ntt o “ de f

e nd, i nde m ni f

y , pr ot e c ta nd s a ve [ C S X ] ha rm l e s s f r om a nd agai nst[des i gn at ed l osse s and ca sual t i es ] . ” I d. at12 38 . In addi t i on , K U A agre ed in th e C r o s s in g A g r e e m e n t to “d e f e n d a n d in d e m n if

ya n yc o m p a n yw h o s e p r o p e rty w a s ‘o p e r a te d ’ b y C S X a t th e r a ilr o a d c r o s s in g .” I d . I n or de rt o out f

i tthe P l a nt , K U A c ontr a c t e d w i th G e ne r a l E l e c tr i c C om pa ny (“ G E ”) for the pu rc hase and d el i veryof a c om bu st i on turbi ne and i t s r el at ed im p le m e n ts . I n th e ira g r e e m e n t, G E p r o m is e d to d e f e n d a n d in d e m n if

yK U A “to the e xt e ntof

a nd on a c c ountof

a nyne gl i ge nta c torom i s s i on of [ G E ] i n” pu rc hasi ng and d el i veri ng the turbi ne. Id. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). G E then c ontr a c t e d w i th S t e w a rta nd S t e ve ns on S e rvi c e s , I nc . ( “ S & S ” ) f orthe pur c ha s e a nd c u s t o m i z a t i o n o f

th e tu rb i n e a n d r e l a t e d p a rt s . S &S i n tu rn c o n tr a c t e d wi th WOKO7

T ranspo rt at i on (“ W O K O ”) , a transpo rt at i on brok er , t o d el i ver the cust om i ze d turbi ne e qui pm e nt . W O K O ul t i m a t e l yc ontr a c t e d w i th R ountr e e t o ha ve the tu rb in e a n d its h o u s in g e n c lo s u r e d e liv e r e d to th e P la n t. O n 3 0 N o v e m b e r1 9 9 3 , e n r o u te to th e P la n t w ith th e tu rb in e a n d its e n c lo s u r e , R o u n tr e e c a m e to th e r a ilr o a d c r o s s in g lic e n s e d to K U A b yC S X . R e a l i z i ng tha tthe he i ghtof the r i g w oul d ha ve t o be a dj us t e d pr i ort o tr a ve r s i ng the cr ossi ng , the R ou ntre e w orkers st op ped the ri g o n the tra cks t o m ake the neces sary adj ustm ent s. B ef

ore the ri g w as re m ov ed fr om the tra cks, ho w ever , an A m tra k p a s s e n g e rtr a in c o llid e d w ith th e r ig , d e s tr o y in g th e r ig , th e tu rb in e , a n d its en cl o su re, as w el l as cau si n g d am ag e t o th e trai n an d so m e o f i t s p assen g ers. L i t i ga t i on e ns ue d. A f

t e rathr e e - w e e k j urytr i a l on the i s s ue of l i abi l i tyf

or al l cl ai m ant s and al l defe nd ant s i n the consol i dat ed ca se s, the j ury f ou nd R ou ntre e w as 59 % atfaul tfor the col l i si on , C S X w as 33 % atfaul t , and A m tra k w as 8% at faul t . In addi t i on , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthe transpo rt at i on of the turbi ne w as an i nh er ent l y dangerous act i vi ty, and there fore W O K O , S & S , and G E w er e vi cari ou sl y l i abl e f

or R ou ntre e’ s negl i gence. T he di stri ctcourthad al so grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of C S X and A m tra k o n thei r argum ent s thatK U A w as contra ctual l y obl i gat ed un der the C ross i ng A gree m entt o d ef end and i nd em ni fy th e m in th is litig a tio n . F u rth e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d s u m m a ryju d g m e n t inTheir a rgument was ba sed on F LA . S TAT . ch. 76 8. 81 , th eF lorida c omp arativ efa

ult 1 statute . Under t

hestatute , in

c a se s wheremultip lepa

rtie s a reat f a ult , damag e s a

wa rde d to prevailingpa

rtie s arere duc e d b y

the ir perc entag eof

fa ult . Id. B e c a

us eRountre ewa s f

ound to be 59% at fault, and be causeRountree’ s fault could be a pportioned to S&S, and hence AHA, through vic ari ou s li a

bil ity, th epa

rtie s argue d th at AHA ’sre c ov ery wa s limite d to41 % o f its proven da mag es. 8 fa vo r of G E on the cl ai m s of K U A and F M P A thatG E w as ob l i gat ed t o i nd em ni fy them for thei r e xp ense s i n d ef endi ng them se l ves i n the turbi ne l i t i gat i on . A j ury tr ia l o n th e is s u e o f

d a m a g e s f

o llo w e d , a f

te rw h ic h m a n yo f

th e p a rtie s s e ttle d th e ir cl ai m s. T he A m er i can H om e A ss urance Co rporat i on (“ A H A ”) , ho w ever , w hi ch w a s the s ubr oge e of

S & S , ha d nots e tt l e d i t s c l a i m s . A f t e rA H A r e s t e d i t s c a s e - i nc h ie f a s to its d a m a g e s , s e v e r a l p a rtie s m o v e d f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to d ir e c t a ve r di c ti n f

a vorof A H A a ga i ns tR ountr e e , C S X , a nd A m tr a k i n the a m ountof $1 , 85 1, 82 2. 40 , w hi ch re pres ent ed 41 % of the dam ages they argued A H A had p r o v e n a t tr ia l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d th e m o tio n a n d d ir e c te d ju d g m e n t in 1 f a v o ro f A H A in th e a m o u n t o f

$ 1 ,8 5 1 ,8 2 2 .4 0 . T h e in stan t ap p ea l fo ll o w ed . A H A ap p ea led , i n ter a li a, th e d istrict co u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t F LA . S TAT . c h. 768. 81 appl i e d a nd l i m i t e d i t s r e c ove ryt o 41% o f its p ro v en d am ag es . In ad d it io n , K U A an d F M P A ap p ea led th e d istrict co u rt’s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe C r os s i ng A gr e e m e ntc ontr a c tua l l yobl i ga t e d the m t o de f e nd a n d in d e m n if

y C S X a n d A m tr a k . T h e ya r g u e d , in te ra lia , th a t s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity p recl u d ed th e en fo rcem en to f th e t erm s o f th e C ro ssi n g A g reem en t . B ecau se th ese9

is s u e s p r e s e n te d u n a n s w e r e d q u e s tio n s o f F lo r id ala w th a t w e r e n o t s p e c if ic a lly addres se d b y F l ori da prece dent , w e c ert i fi ed four qu es t i on s t o the S up re m e C ou rt of F l or i da . W e now pr oc e e d t o a ddr e s s the c e rt i f i e d que s t i ons a nd the F l or i da S upr e m e C ourt ’ s r e s pons e s i n turn. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . F lo r id a ’s C o m p a r a tiv e F au lt S ta tu te O n ap p ea l, A H A ar g u ed th at th e d istrict co u rt im p ro p er ly ap p li ed F lo rid a’s c o m p a r a tiv e f

au lt s ta tu te , F LA . S TAT . ch. 76 8. 81 , i n d et erm i ni ng thati t s r ec ov ery w a s lim ite d to 4 1 % o f

its p r o v e n d a m a g e s . P a rtic u la r ly , A H A a r g u e d th a t th e f au lt of R ou ntre e, an ac t i ve t ort fe as or, coul d n otbe appo rt i on ed t o A H A , w hi ch w as vi cari ou sl y l i abl e, un der the com para t i ve faul tst atut e bec ause “ § 7 68 . 81 appl i es s o le lyto p a rtie s w h o a r e d ir e c tlyn e g lig e n t, a n d th a t ap a rtyw h o is o n lyv ic a r io u s ly l i abl e c anno thave faul tappo rt i on ed t o h i m un der § 76 8. 81 . ” N at ’ l R . R . P as se ng er C o rp ., 2 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 4 . B e c au s e th e r e s o lu tio n o f th e p a rtie s ’ c o n te n tio n s o n th is is s u e w a s n o t c le a rf

r o m F lo r id ap r e c e d e n t, w e c e rtif ie d th e f o llo w in g q u e s tio n to th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f

F lo r id a : S HO UL D A VI C AR I OU S L Y L I AB L E P AR T Y H AV E T HE NEGLI GENCE OF T HE ACTI VE TORT FE ASOR APPORT I ON ED T O I T UN DE R F L OR I DA S T AT UT E § 7 6 8 . 8 1 S UC H T HA T RE COVERY OF I TS OW N D AM AG ES I S R EDUCED C ON C OMI T AN T L Y?10

I d . a t 1 2 5 8 . A f

te rc o n s id e r in g th e is s u e , th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt r e s p o n d e d to the que s t i on i n the a f

f i rm a t i ve . S e e A m . H om e A s s ur a nc e C o. , __ S o. 2d a t__ ( s lip o p . a t 2 2 ) . N o tin g th a t th e s ta tu te p r o v id e s th a t “a n yc o n tr ib u to ryf au lt c ha r ge abl e t o the c l a i m a ntdi m i ni s he s pr oport i ona t e l y ” the a m ountthe c l a i m a nt m ayre cover, F LA . S TAT . ch. 76 8. 81 (2) ( em ph as i s a dd ed), the courtdet erm i ned that the st atut e “ m ustbe re ad t o i ncl ud e part i es other than tho se thatar e di re ct l y l i abl e, a n d th u s [ th e s t a tu t e ] ap p l i e s t o v i c a r i o u s l yl i ab l e p a rt i e s s u c h a s A H A . ” A m. H om e A s s ur a nc e C o. , __ S o. 2d a t__ ( s l i p op. a t22) . B e c aus e the F l or i da S u p r e m e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t F LA . S TAT . c h . 7 6 8 .8 1 w a s p r o p e r lyap p lie d to lim it A H A ’ s r e c ove ry t o 41% of i t s pr ove n da m a ge s , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s appl i c a t i on of th e s ta tu te a n d its a w a r d o f d a m a g e s to A H A a r e a f f irm e d . B . I nde m ni f

i c a t i on U nde rthe C r os s i ng A gr e e m e nt 1 . S o v erei g n Im m u n i ty K U A and F M P A al so appeal ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on that , un der the C r os s i ng A gr e e m e nt , the y w e r e obl i ga t e d t o de f e nd a nd i nde m ni f

yC S X a nd A m tr a k . K U A a n d F M P A a r g u e d , in te ra lia , th a t s ta te s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity p r in c ip le s p r e c lu d e d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n a s to th e irin d e m n ity obl i ga t i on. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the y a r gue d tha ts ove r e i gn i m m uni tyc oul d onl ybe w ai ved b y an actof the F l ori da l egi sl ature, and thatthe l egi sl ature had w ai ved11

s ove r e i gn i m m uni ty i n the a r e aof t ort s i n F LA . S TAT . ch. 76 8. 28 , bu ton l y und er spec i fi ed ci rc um st ance s and on l y up t o $ 10 0, 00 0 p ercl ai m antor $2 00 , 00 0 p er a c c i de nt . S e e N a t ’ l R . R . P a s s e nge rC orp. , 286 F . 3d a t1265. B e c aus e the C r os s i ng A g r e e me n tp u rp o rt e d l y r e q u i r e d K U A a n d FM PA t o d e f e n d a n d i n d e mn i f

yCSX above the s e s t a tut or i l y - pe rm i tt e d l i m i t s , K U A a nd F M P A a r gue d tha tthe in d e m n if ic a tio n p o rtio n o f

th e C r o s s in g A g r e e m e n t s h o u ld n o t b e g iv e n e f f e c t. I d . B ec ause the appl i cabi l i ty of F LA . S TAT . c h . 7 6 8 . 2 8 wa s u n c l e a ru n d e rF l o r i d al a w, w e c ert i fi ed three re l at ed qu es t i on s t o the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da: G I V E N T H A T K I S S I M M E E U T I L I T Y A U T H O R I T Y , A M U N I CI PA L A G EN CY U N D ER FLO RI D A LA W , A G REED BY C ON T R AC T T O I ND E MNI F Y A P R I VA T E P AR T Y, I S T HE AG R E E ME NT C ON T R OL L E D B Y T HE R E S T R I C T I ON S ON WAI VE R OF S OV E R E I GN I MM UN I T Y F OU ND I N F L OR I DA S T A T U T E § 768. 28? I S T HE I ND E MNI F I C AT I ON AG R E E ME NT I NS T E AD CO N TRO LLED BY TH E RU LE FO R BREA CH - O F- CO N TRA CT AC T I ON S E NU NC I AT E D I N P AN - AM T OB AC C O C OR P . V. D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , 47 1 S o. 2d 4 (F l a. 19 8[4] )? I F P AN - AM AP P L I E S , DO E S A MUN I C I P AL AG E NC Y L I KE KI S S I MM E E UT I L I T Y A UT HO R I T Y L OS E T HE P R OT E C T I ON O F S O V E R E IG N IM M U N IT Y O N L Y IF IT H A S S P E C IF IC ST ATUTORY A UTHO RI ZATI ON TO ENTE R I NTO I ND E MNI F I C AT I ON AG R E E ME NT S , ORI S I T S UF F I C I E NT TH A T TH E A G EN CY M O RE G EN ERA LLY H A S STA TU TO RY A U TH O RI ZA TI O N TO CO N TRA CT W I TH PRI V A TE PA RTI ES? I d . a t 1 2 6 9 .12

T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f

F lo r id aa n s w e r e d th e f

ir s t o f th e s e q u e s tio n s in the ne ga t i ve . S e e A m . H om e A s s ur a nc e C o. , __ S o. 2d a t__ ( s l i p op. a t30) . T he c o u rt r e a s o n e d th a t, u n d e rth e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e s ta tu te , F LA . S TAT . c h. 768. 28 appl i es w hen a pl ai nt i ff i s s ee ki ng t o rec ov erdam ages i n t ort . Id. at__(s l i p o p. at 2 9 ) . I n c o n tr a s t, th e c o u rt f o u n d th a t th e in d e m n if

ic a tio n p r o v is io n a t is s u e in th is c a s e w a s “ ba s e d on ac ontr a c tbe tw e e n K U A a nd C S X , ” na m e l y , the C r os s i ng A g r e e m e n t. I d . ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o u rt f o u n d th a t F LA . S TAT . c h . 7 6 8 .2 8 w a s in ap p lic ab le . T he courtansw er ed the se cond of these ce rt i fi ed qu es t i on s i n the negat i ve as w el l . Id. at__(s l i p o p. at30 ). N ot i ng thatP an-A m i nv ol ved the contra ctual l i abi l i t i e s of

the S t a t e of

F l or i da , the c ourtf

ound the c a s e i nappl i c abl e i n the i ns t a nt ca se w hi ch i nv ol ved m un i ci pal ent i t i es . S ee i d. T he courtno t ed that

“ m uni c i pa l i t i e s ha ve l ong pos s e s s e d both the pow e rt o e xe c ut e c ontr a c t s a nd the c onc om i t a ntl i abi l i ty f

orthe i rbr e a c h. ” I d. T he c ourtpr oc e e de d t o not e tha t“ the pa rt i e s ha ve f

a i l e d t o i de nt i f

y a ny l a w pr ohi bi t i ng K U A f r om e xe c ut i ng the [ C ] r os s i ng [ A ] gr e e m e nta nd the i nde m ni f i c a t i on pr ovi s i on i tc ont a i ns . ” I d. a t__ ( s lip o p . a t 3 3 ) . A s ar e s u lt o f th e c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n th a t P a n - A m d id n o t ap p lyin the i nst antl i t i gat i on , the courtdecl i ned t o answ erthe l as tce rt i fi ed qu es t i on . Id. at

__n .6 ( s lip o p . a t 3 5 ) .13

2. A ddi t i ona l A r gum e nt s A ga i ns tI nde m ni f i c a t i on T he c ourt ’ s f

i ndi ng tha ts ove r e i gn i m m uni tydoe s noti ns ul a t e K U A a nd F M P A f r o m its in d e m n if

ic a tio n o b lig a tio n s u n d e rth e C r o s s in g A g r e e m e n t, h o we v e r , d o e s n o te n d o u ri n q u i ry . I n o u rp r e v i o u s o p i n i o n , we n o t e d th a tKU A and F M P A m ade a dd i t i on al ar gu m ent s a gai nstthe di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof part i al s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f

a vorof C S X a nd A m tr a k on the i s s ue of the va l i di tyof

the C r o s s in g A g r e e m e n t. B u t, b e c au s e a n a f f irm a tiv e f

in d in g o f s o v e r e ig n im m u n ity f r om the F l or i daS upr e m e C ourtw oul d ha ve be e n di s pos i t i ve , w e r e s e rve d our det erm i nat i on on these ar gu m ent s. S ee N at ’ l R . R . P as se ng erC orp. , 28 6 F . 3d at 1264. A c c or di ngl y , w e now a ddr e s s thos e a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s . I n m a ki ng our de t e rm i na t i on, w e not e tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof pa rt i a l s um m a ryj udgm e nt i s r e vi e w e d de novo, a nd i t s f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr or . B urne s v. P e m c o A e r o p le x , I n c ., 2 9 1 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . F i r s t , K U A a nd F M P A a r gue d tha tthe i nde m ni f i c a t i on pr ovi s i on i n the C r o s s in g A g r e e m e n t is in v a lidb e c au s e its te rm s d o n o t s a tis f yth e r e q u ir e m e n ts in F LA . S TAT . c h. 725. 06. U nde rthe s t a tut e i n pl a c e a tthe t i m e the C r os s i ng A gree m entw as exec ut ed, a c on tra ctfor c on struct i on of an appu rt enance i n w hi ch one pa rty a gr e e s t o i nde m ni f y a nd hol d ha rm l e s s a n ow ne rof the r e a l pr ope rtyon w hi c h the appurt e na nc e i s c ons truc t e d m us tc ont a i n: ( 1) am one t a ryl i m i t a t i on on14

the e xt e ntof

the i nde m ni f

i c a t i on; or( 2) s pe c i f

i c c ons i de r a t i on gi ve n bythe i nd em ni fi ed party t o the i nd em ni t or. S ee F LA . S TAT . c h. 725. 06 ( 1993) . A s s um i ng w i thoutde c i di ng tha tthe s t a tut e appl i e d t o the C r os s i ng A gr e e m e nt , w e not e the S up re m e C ou rtof F l ori da st at ed i n i t s opi ni on thatK U A ’ s a gree m entt o i nd em ni fy w as g iv en “[i] n re co g n it io n o f th e in cr ea se d risk s a ss o ciated w ith th e u se o f C S X ’s pr ope rty , tr a c ks , a nd r i ght - of - w a ya nd a s pa rtof

the ‘ c ons i de r a t i on’ f

orr e c e i vi ng thi s l i ce nse. ” A m . H om e A ss urance Co . , __S o. 2d at__(s l i p o p. at34 ). In a ddi t i on, the c ourts t a t e d, “ the i nde m ni f i c a t i on a gr e e m e nti s bi ndi ng a nd enforce abl e. ” I d. In thi s c i rc ui t , a s t at e s up re m e c ou rt ’ s answ ert o cert i fi ed q u e s tio n s is “c o n c lu s iv e ” o n th e is s u e c e rtif ie d . N a t’l E d u c . A s s ’n v . L e e C o u n ty B d. of P ub. I ns truc t i on, 467 F . 2d 447, 450 ( 5th C i r . 1972) . M or e ove r , upon recei v i n g an an sw er t o a cert i fi ed q u est i o n , o u r “ co u rtd o es n o tseco n d -g u ess a S t a t e ’ s appl i c a t i on of

i t s ow n l a w . ” I d. a t450 n. 6. T hus , a l though w e di d not c e rt i f y t o the F l or i daS upr e m e C ourtaque s t i on aboutthe va l i di tyof the C r os s i ng A g reem en t ’ s i n d em n i ty p ro v i si o n v i s-a-v i s F LA . S TAT . c h . 7 2 5 .0 6 , w e d e c lin e to s e c o n d - g u e s s th e c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t K U A r e c e iv e d c o n s id e r a tio n f o rits agre em entt o i nd em ni fyC S X and thatthe C ross i ng A gree m enti s e nforceabl e. S ee i d . ; see al so R ed g rav e v . B o st o n S ym p h o n y O rch estra, In c. , 8 5 5 F . 2 d 8 8 8 , 9 0 3 (1 st C i r. 19 88 ) ( en banc) (not i ng thatdet erm i nat i on s m ade by ast at e c ou rtother than15

thos e i n di r e c tr e s pons e t o c e rt i f i e d que s t i ons s houl d be c a r e f ul l yc ons i de r e d by c e rt i f y i ng c ourt ) . M or e ove r , thi s c onc l us i on c oi nc i de s w i th ourow n r e vi e w of F l or i das t a t e l a w . A s one F l or i dac ourtnot e d, “ [ t ] he ‘ s pe c i f i c c ons i de r a t i on’ r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 7 2 5 . 0 6 ( 2 ) n e e d n o tb e ad o l l a ra mo u n t . ” Pe o p l e s G a s Sy s t e m, Inc. v. R S H C on struct ors, Inc. , 56 3 S o. 2d 10 7, 10 9 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 90 ); se e W e s tin g h o u s e E le c . C o rp . v . T u rn b e rryC o rp ., 4 2 3 S o . 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 0 9 ( F la . D is t. C t. A pp . 19 82 ) ( fi nd i ng agre em entt o d el i ver e l evat ors ahead of sc hedu l e c on st i tut ed

“ s pe c i f i c c ons i de r a t i on” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the s t a tut e ) . A c c or di ngl y , a l though th e C ro ss in g A g re em en t d idn o t sp ec ify a d o ll aram o u n t as c o n sid er atio n , C S X ’s gr a ntof al i c e ns e t o us e the c r os s i ng t o a c c e s s the P l a nta nd the a l l ow a nc e of i ncre as ed ri sk att endantt o such u se const i tut ed consi dera t i on nece ss ary t o sat i sf y F LA . S TAT . c h . 7 2 5 . 0 6 . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e r e j e c tth e a r g u me n to f

K U A a n d FM PA th a t th e s ta tu te r e n d e r e d th e in d e m n ityp r o v is io n in th e C r o s s in g A g r e e m e n t v o id . S e c ond, K U A a nd F M P A a r gue d tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nton the i nde m ni f i c a t i on i s s ue be c aus e age nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctexi st ed as t o w hether the i nd em ni ty provi si on const i tut ed an excul pat ory c l ause un enforce abl e und erF l ori da l aw . P art i cul ar l y, they argued that af a c t q u e s tio n e x is te d a s to w h e th e rC S X h e ld as u p e r io rb a r g a in in g p o s itio n in n e g o t i a t i n g th e Cr o s s i n g A g r e e me n t . A s w e n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , th e Fl o r i d aSu p r e me16

C o u rt in its a n s w e rto o u rc e rtif ic a tio n s ta te d th a t “th e in d e m n if ic a tio n a g r e e m e n t is bi nd i ng and enforceabl e. ” A m . H om e A ss urance Co . , __S o. 2d at__(s l i p o p. at 34) . A l s o a s w e not e d pr e vi ous l y , w e a r e di s i nc l i ne d t o s e c ond- gue s s the d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt in lig h t o f th is c le a rla n g u a g e in its opi ni on. S e e N a t ’ l E duc . A s s ’ n, 467 F . 2d a t450 n. 6. M or e ove r , the F l or i da S up re m e C ou rthas pre vi ou sl y det erm i ned thata r ai l road’ s r ec ei ptof an i nde m ni f i c a t i on a gr e e m e nta s c ons i de r a t i on f orgr a nt i ng al i c e ns e t o us e ac r os s i ng ov eri t s tra cks di d n otdem on stra t e the use of s up er i or bargai ni ng po w ersuch that the i nde m ni f

i c a t i on a gr e e m e ntw a s r e nde r e d une nf or c e abl e . S e e R us s e l l v. M a rt i n, 8 8 S o . 2 d 3 1 5 , 3 1 7 -1 8 (F l a. 1 9 5 6 ); see al so Jack so n v i l l e T erm i n al C o . v . R y. E xpr e s s A ge nc y , I nc . , 296 F . 2d 256, 262- 63 ( 5th C i r . 1961) ( c i t i ng R us s e l l a nd concl ud i ng thatan i nd em ni fi ca t i on agre em entoffe re d b y aF l ori da t erm i nal c o m p a n y w h ic h o w n e d r a ilr o a d tr a c k s to as h ip p in g c o m p a n ya s p a rt o f ale a s e to us e the tr a c ks di d “ notvi ol a t e publ i c pol i c y ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e r e j e c tthe a r g u me n to f

K U A a n d FM PA th a taf a c tq u e s t i o n e x i s t e d a s t o w h e th e rCSX e xe r c i s e d as upe r i orba r ga i ni ng pos i t i on i n ne got i a t i ng f orthe i nde m ni typr ovi s i on w hi c h the r e f

or e r e nde r e d the C r os s i ng A gr e e m e nti nva l i d. T hi r d, K U A a nd F M P A a r gue d tha tthe i nde m ni typr ovi s i on i n the C r os s i ng A gr e e m e ntw a s i nappl i c abl e t o the f a c t s of thi s c a s e be c aus e the ne gl i ge nta c t i ons17

of C S X oc c urr e d i n al oc a t i on s e pa r a t e a nd r e m ove d f r om the r a i l r oa d c r os s i ng w here the ac ci dentoccurre d. P art i cul ar l y, they argued thatbecause the negl i gence appo rt i on ed t o C S X st em m ed fr om the om i ss i on s of i t s per sonn el i n Jac kson vi l l e, F lo r id a , th e liab ilityo f

C S X w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n tlyc o n n e c te d to th e c r o s s in g to tr i g g e rth e i n d e m n i ty p r o v i s i o n . T h e C r o s s i n g Ag r e e m e n tp r o v i d e d th a tKU A a gr e e d t o i nde m ni f

y C S X f or“ a l l c l a i m s a nd l i abi l i ty. . . ar i s i ng outof , r e s ul t i ng f r o m , o rc o n n e c te d in a n y m a n n e rw ith th e . . . u s e . . . o f s a id [ c ]r o s s in g . . . re gardl es s of c ause . ” S ee R 1-18 7, E x. A at¶ 1 4. 2. H er e, C S X ’ s l i abi l i ty s t em m ed f r o m c l a i m s wh i c h a r o s e f r o m th e 1 9 9 3 c o l l i s i o n a tth e c r o s s i n g . T h u s , b e c au s e we c onc l ude s uc h c l a i m s w e r e c ove r e d bythe a l l - e nc om pa s s i ng l a ngua ge i n the i nd em ni ty provi si on , w e r ej ec tas m er i t l es s the ar gu m entof K U A and F M P A that the i nd em ni ty provi si on w as i napp l i cabl e. F ou rth, K U A and F M P A ar gu ed thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y grant ed p art i al su m m ary j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f A m trakb y fi n d i n g th atA m trakw as a b e n e f i c i a ry o f th e i n d e mn i ty a g r e e me n tb e tw e e n K U A a n d CSX . U n d e rth e t e rms o f th e i n d em n i ty p ro v i si o n , K U A ag reed n o to n l y t o i n d em n i fy C S X , b u tal so

“ ‘ a ny othe rc om pa ny . . . w hos e pr ope rtya t[ the c r os s i ng] m a ybe l e a s e d or op er at ed by the un ders i gn ed [C S X ] , ’ as w el l as ‘ any par ent , subsi di ary or a ff i l i at ed s y s t e m c om pa ni e s of

[ C S X ] . ’ ” N a t ’ l R . R . P a s s e nge rC orp. , 286 F . 3d a t126318

(quo t i ng the C ross i ng A gree m ent ). C i t i ng the un di sput ed fa ctthat“ [w ] hen an A m tr a k tr a i n w a s m ovi ng on C S X tr a c k i tw a s s ubj e c tt o C S X rul e s a nd r e gul a t i ons and i t s m ov em entw as control l ed by C S X di spat cher s, ” R 10 9-21 83 at7, the di stri ct courtconcl ud ed as a m att erof l aw thatthe A m tra k tra i n w as “ op er at ed” by C S X at th e t i me o f

th e c o l l i s i o n a s d e f

i n e d i n th e Cr o s s i n g A g r e e me n t . K U A a n d FM PA have no tdi sput ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng as t o C S X ’ s c on trol ov er A m tr a k tr a i ns . S e e B urne s , 291 F . 3d a t1284; s e e a l s o U ni t e d T r a ns p. U ni on v. C S X T r a ns p. , I nc . , 902 F . 2d 36 ( 6th C i r . 1990) ( unpubl i s he d t abl e de c i s i on) ( de s c r i bi ng how C S X w a s abl e t o “ c ontr ol r a i l tr a f f i c ” us i ng i t s tr a c ks thr ough

“ tra i n o rder s” and “ proceed si gn al s” ). M oreover, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt th a tth i s f

i n d i n g wa s s u f

f i c i e n tt o s u p p o rtth e c o n c l u s i o n th a t , a s am a tt e ro f l a w, C S X w a s “ ope r a t i ng” the A m tr a k tr a i n a s de f i ne d i n the C r os s i ng A gr e e m e nta tthe t i m e of the col l i si on . U nd erF l ori da contra ctl aw , w here the contra ctt erm s are c le a ra n d u n a m b ig u o u s , ac o u rt m u s t g iv e e f f e c t to th e p la in m e a n in g o f th e te rm s . S e e B u rn s v . B a r f

ie ld , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 5 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) . C o u rts m ayre sortt o ref

er ence m at er i al s t o d et erm i ne the ac ce pt ed pl ai n m eani ng of a part i cul art erm . S ee i d. (r el yi ng on di ct i on ary def i ni t i on of “ thi rd party” ). S uch in q u iry r e v e a ls th a t “o p e r a te ” is d e f in e d a s “to c au s e to o c c u r ” ; “to c au s e to funct i on ”; “ t o m anage and pu tor keep i n o pera t i on . ” W EB STE R ’ S T HIRD N EW19

I NT ER NA TI ON AL D I CTI ONARY 15 80 -81 (19 93 ). B as ed on thi s def i ni t i on , coup l ed w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s und i sput ed fa ctual fi nd i ng thatC S X di ct at ed ho w A m tra k tr a i ns f unc t i one d a nd m a na ge d the tr a i ns ’ ope r a t i ons , w e c onc l ude a s am a tt e rof la w th a t C S X “o p e r a te d ” th e A m tr a ktr a in s a s d e f in e d in th e C r o s s in g A g r e e m e n t. M o r e o v e r , w e n o t e th a tth e Cr o s s i n g A g r e e me n tp r o v i d e d i n d e mn i tyf o rc l a i ms ar i si ng fr om the “ use” of the cr ossi ng by “ any other c om pany” w ho se prop erty w as op er at ed by C S X . S ee R 1-18 7, E x. A at¶¶ 1. 2, 14 . 2. B ec ause i ti s und i sput ed that A m tr a k tr a i ns w e r e a ta l l t i m e s be f or e a nd a f

t e rthe e xe c ut i on of

the C r os s i ng A gr e e m e ntr e gul a r l y us i ng the C S X tr a c ks , w e f i nd tha tthe c ons truc t i on of the i n d em n i ty ag reem en to ffered b y K U A an d F M P A w o u l d effecti v el y ren d er th ese prov i si on s m er e s urpl usage. S ee H ar grave v. H ar grave, 72 8 S o. 2d 36 6, 36 7 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 99 ) ( no t i ng that“ [e ] veryprov i si on i n a contra ctshou l d b e gi ven m e a n in g a n d e f

f e c t” to a v o id r e n d e r in g a n yp r o v is io n “m e r e s u rp lu s a g e ” ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e c o n c l u d e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yc o n c l u d e d th a tCSX

“ ope r a t e d” the A m tr a k tr a i n i nvol ve d i n the c ol l i s i on a s de f i ne d i n the C r os s i ng A g r e e m e n t, th e r e b y tr ig g e r in g th e d u tyo f K U A a n d F M P A to in d e m n if yA m tr a k . I n s um , the n, ba s e d on the S upr e m e C ourtof F l or i da ’ s opi ni on a nd our d e te rm in a tio n s in th is o p in io n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin f i n d i n g th a tth e i n d e m n i ty p r o v i s i o n i n th e C r o s s i n g Ag r e e m e n to b l i g a t e d KU A20

an d F M P A to in d em n ify b o th C S X an d A m trak . A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt’s g r a n t o f p a rtia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is is s u e in f a v o ro f C S X a n d A m tr a kis a f f irm e d . I I I . CONCL US I ON I n th is ap p e a l, w e w e r e c a lle d u p o n to r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e r s in l i ghtof the r e s pons e s t o f

ourque s t i ons w e c e rt i f

i e d pr e vi ous l yi n thi s c a s e t o the S upr e m e C ourtof

F l or i da . B a s e d on the F l or i daS upr e m e C ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons a nd oura na l y s i s of

the pa rt i e s ’ r e m a i ni ng a r gum e nt s , w e ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyap p lie d th e F lo r id ac o m p a r a tiv e f au lt s ta tu te , F LA . S TAT . c h. 7 6 8 .8 1 , to lim it A H A ’s r e c o v e ry to 4 1 % o f its p r o v e n d a m a g e s , a n d p r o p e r ly c o n c l u d e d th a tth e i n d e m n i ty p r o v i s i o n i n th e C r o s s i n g Ag r e e m e n to b l i g a t e d KU A an d F M P A to in d em n ify C S X an d A m trak . A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt’s d i sp o si t i o n o f th e cert i fi ed i ssu es i s A FFI R M ED .