F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 3, 2006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 04- 1563 0

________________________ D. C. Dock etNos . 03-014 07-CV- ORL -18-JGG& 04-00486 -CV -O RL GREAT AMERICAN E&S INSUR ANCE COMPANY, f . k . a . Ag r i c u l t u r a l Ex c e s s & S u rp l u s I n s u r a n c e C o mp n a y, Plaintiff-A ppellee, ve rs us CHR IST IN E S AD IK I, FO U A D S A D IKI, he r husb an d, D ef en da nts -A ppe lla nts .

__________________________________________________________________ CHR IST IN E S AD IK I, FO UA D S AD IK I, P la int if fs -A ppe lla nts , ve rs us AGRICULTURAL EXCESS & SURP LUS INSURANCE COMP ANY, n . k . a . Gr e a tAme r i c a n E& S I n s u r a n c e C o mp a n y, De fendant-Appellee.2 ________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (M ar ch 3, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appellants Christine and Fouad Sadiki appeal the dis trict court’ s order gr an tin g f ina l su mm ary j udgmen t i n th e unde rl y ing de cl ar at or y j udgmen t a ct ion s in favor of A ppellee Gr eat A m erica n E & S Insurance Co., f/k/a A gricultural E xc es s a nd S urplu s I nsur an ce Co . ( "G re at A m eric an ") . T he S ad iki s arg ue tha t the district court erre d in failing to construe the subject insurance policy under Ne w York law and ask this cou rt to rever se the district court's order or certifythe choice of la w iss ue to the S upr eme Co ur t of F lorida . B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt c orre ct ly co nc lud edtha t the c hoi ce of la w iss ue is co ntr oll edby bin din g pr ec ed en t f ro m thi s co ur t, it s or de r is a ff

ir m ed . I. BACKGROUND Bo th o f the und er ly ing de cl ar at or y j udgmen t a ct ion s pe rt ai n to li ab ili ty unde r an ins ur an ce pol ic y iss ue d byG re at A m eric an to T ar

ra gon Re al ty I nve sto rs , Inc. and its sub sidiary and sister com panies (collectively , "T arra gon"). T he policy1 The po llution clause prov ided, in relev ant p art, th at the policy did not apply to: 3 pr ovi de d li ab ili ty c ove ra ge on s ev er al of T ar ra gon' s pr ope rt ie s th ro ugho ut the United States, includin g the Orla ndo Central Park T arra gon ("OCP Tarragon") de ve lop m en t i n O rl an do, F lorida . I t i s un dis put edtha t the part ie s e nte re d in to the co nt ract in New York . The S ulliv an Gr oup ("Sulliv an") is a propertym anagem ent com pany hired to m an ag e one of

T ar ra gon' s bu ild ing s in O rl an do. S ull iva n e m plo y edRa lph Caba n to m an ag e the bui ldi ng. O n O ct obe r 26, 200 0, Caba n a lle ge dlyspr ay eda chemical mixture near the building 's air intake sy stem in an effort to exterminate a wa sp nest. Christine Sadiki, w ho was w orking in the build ing on that date, al le ge dl y su ffer ed in

juri es as ares ul t o f in ha li ng th e ch emic al s t ha t Ca ba n s pr ay ed . Sh e an d he r husb an d f

ile d su it ag ai nst

T ar ra gon, S ull iva n, a nd C ab an in Fl or ida sta te c ourt. A ft er the S ad iki s f

ile d th ei r sta te c ourt c la im , G re at A m eric an f

ile d a n a ct ion in federal district court see king a declar ation regarding its d uties und er the subj ect ins ur an ce pol ic y . G re at

A m eric an ' s princ ipa l arg um en t w as tha t i t ha d no dut y to defend or indemnify Tarragon, S ulliv an, a nd Caban because the policy contained an "Absolute Pollutio n and Contamination Exclusion with a H ostile Fire E xc ep tio n" (the "p oll uti on c lause ") tha t e xc lud edc ove ra ge of the S ad iki s' c la im s. 1"Bod ily injury " "person al injury " or "p roperty dam ag es" (actu al, a lleg ed or thre atened) arising ou t of the d ischarg e, dispersa l, rele ase, or esc ape of sm oke, v apors, soo t, fu m es, acids, alk alis, oil or other petroleu m substan ce, toxic substan ces o f che micals, waste m aterials o r othe r irri ta nt s, c on ta min an ts o r po ll ut an ts w he th er s ol id s, li qu id s, g as es , in to or u po n la nd , th e at m os ph er e or a nyw at er co ur se o r bo dyo f w at er . The S ad ik

is d o no t d is pu te th e di stri ct c ou rt ’s h ol di ng th at

th e po ll ut io n cl au se v al id ly 2 exc lud es t hei r in

j uri es f rom cov er age under Flor ida law.

4 T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t the pol ic y sho uldbe int er pr et edund er

F lorida la w a nd tha t, und er

F lorida la w , the pol lut ion c lause una m big uous ly e xc lud edc ove ra ge f or the ty pe of injur ies alleged by the Sadikis. T he district court therefore granted Gr eat A m erica n's m otion for summ aryj udgm ent in the und erly ing declaratory j udgmen t a ct ion s. O n appe al , the S ad iki s arg ue tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr edin apply ing Florida law r ather than that of N ew York, the state w here the insurance co ntr ac t w as iss ue d. 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Thi s co ur t re vi ews a di st ric t co ur t's gra nt of s um m ary jud gm en t d e n ov o. Nol en v. Bo ca Ra to n C mty. Hos p., In c., 37 3 F .3d 11 51 , 11 54 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). The de novo standard applies to a dist rict court's r esolutio n of a choice of la w iss ue a s w el l a s it s in te rp re ta tio n of a n in sur an ce c ontra ct . L aF ar ge Co rp . v. Tr aveler' s Indem . C o., 118 F.3d 1511 , 1514-15 (11th Cir. 1997 ). III. DISC USSION It is we ll-settled that, in diversity actions such as the ins tant case, feder al5

co ur ts m ust appl y the sub sta nti ve la w of the f orum state . I d. a t 15 15 ( ci tin g E ri e R. R. v. T om

pki ns, 304 U . S. 64, 58 S . Ct . 817 ( 1938 ) an d K el le r v. Mi am i H er al d Pu bl' g C o. , 778 F . 2d 7 11 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ). T his pr inc ipl e ex te nds to the f orum state's choice of la w rules. L aFar ge, 118 F. 3d at 151 5 (citations omitted). W e ar e thus b ound to apply Florida's c hoice of law rules in determining which state' s law go ve rn s t hi s ca se . T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t F lorida ' s c hoi ce of la w rule s m an da te the ap pli ca tio n of

F lorida la w to a dis put e ove r a co ntr ac t t o in sur e re al pr ope rt y located within the state. The S adikis concede, as they m ust, that the district court's ho ld in g i s en ti rel y co ns is te nt wit h t wo p rio r op in io ns of t hi s co ur t. Id . a t 15 16 (holdin g that Florida courts would apply Florida law to contracts insuring rea l pr ope rt y loc at edw ith in the state ); S hapir o v. A sso ci at edI nt' l I ns. Co . , 899 F . 2d 1116 , 112 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . L ike the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e ar e boun d to f oll ow the se opin ions. As w e said in Lee v. F rozen Food Express, Inc. , 592 F. 2d 27 1 (5th Cir. 1979 ), in rej ecting a suggesti on that we ce rtify : “ Once a panel of this Court has se ttl edon the state la w to be appl ie d in a div er sit y c as e, the pr ec ed en t sh oul d be followed by other panels . . . absent a subsequ ent state court decision or statuto ry amen dm en t w hic h m ak es thi s C ourt’ s de ci sio n c le ar ly w ro ng. ” I d. a t 27 2. A ft er ac ar ef ul c onsi de ratio n of

the F lorida

c as e la w c ite d bythe part ie s a nd6

re ve al edby our

ow n r es earc h, w e ca nnot c onc lud e tha t the F lorida c ourts h av e given a clear indication that this cou rt’ s decisions in LaF arge a nd Shapiro were w ro ng. L ee , 592 F . 2d a t 27 2. A cc or din gly , w e de cl ine to ce rt if y , a nd w e fo llo w our own prior prece dent. T he district court’ s order is theref ore AFFIR MED.