FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 1- 11 51 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 24 27 -J DW -TGW MARKEL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ver su s FLORIDA W EST COVERED RV & BOAT STORAGE, LLC, NORMAN WE IZER, DIANE W EIZER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts , JULIUS J . SZABO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st11 , 20 11 )Befo re WILSON, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Thi s ac ti on for

de cl arat ory

rel ie f is de riv at iv e o f a s ta te co urt ac ti on bro ug ht by Jul iu s J . Szab o a ga in stNorm anan d Di an e Weizer a s t he own ers an d o pe rat or s of Flo rid a West C ov eredRV & Bo atSto rag e, LLC. Szab o s ue d F lo rid a West a nd th e Weizers (co ll ect iv el y , “ Fl or id a West” ) in a se pa rat e st at e co urt ac ti on . Acco rd in g t o h is co m

pl ai nt , Szab o was for cedto wade th ro ug h re ta in edflo od wate r to retrie ve hi s p ers on al pro pe rty from a st or ag e uni t tha t h e le as edfro m Fl or id a West. Sz ab o a ll eg edth athe “ co nt ract [ed ] ba ct eri al po is on in g,” “ a se ve re ba ct eri al in fect io n,” an d “ in jury” du e to “ m il li ng [s ] fro m roa dwo rk ” whi ch ha d m ix edwith t he flo odwate r. In r es po ns e to Szab o’s co m pl ai nt , Flo rid a West so ug htpro te ct io n u nd er i ts st an da rdco m m erci al ge ne ral li ab il it y

in su ran ce p ol ic y (“ CGL”) wi thMark el Int ern at io na l In su ran ce Co m pa ny. The is su e in th is co ve rag e d is pu te is whet he r th e st at e co urt co m pl ai nt al le ge s fa ct s t ha t fa ll withi n t he am bi t o f two po li cy

ex cl us io ns co nt ai ne d i n t he pa rti es ’ CGL po li cy . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Marke l, fi nd in g t ha t M ark el was n ei th er b ou ndto in de m ni fy Flo rid a West, n or ob li ga te d t o d efen d i t und er the CGL po li cy be cau se th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n

2ex cl us io n a ndab so rp ti on /i nh al at io n/ di se as e ex cl us io n b ot h app li edto de feat

co ve rag e. Flo rid a West n ow ap pe al s. Ourrev ie w is de no vo . Fir ema n’ s Fu nd Ins . Co. v. Tr op ic al

Sh ip pi ng & Co ns tr . Co. , 25 4 F .3d98 7, 1 00 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (“ The qu es ti on of t he ex te ntof co ve rag e und er an in su ran ce p ol ic y is a qu es ti onof l aw . . . andis th eref or e subjec t t o p le na ry

rev ie w by th is Co urt.”) ; Huf f v. DeK al b C nt y., Ga. , 51 6 F .3d 12 73 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws de no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t orde ni al of s umm ary jud gm en t.”) . “ Bec au se fed eral juri sd ic ti on ov er thi s m at te r is ba se d o n d iv ers ity , Flo rid a la w go ve rn s t he de te rm in at io n o f th e is su es on th is ap pe al .” St at e Farm Fir e & Ca s. Co . v. St ei nb er g , 39 3 F .3d12 26 , 12 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s p ro pe r whe n t he re i s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a). Und er Fl or id a la w, an i ns ur er’s dut y to de fen d i s d et erm in edso le ly from th e al le ga ti on s i n t he co m

pl ai nt . Se e Hig

gi ns v. Stat e Farm Fir e & Ca s. Co . , 89 4 S o. 2d5, 9 –1 0 (F la . 20 04 ). An i ns ur er i s u nd er n o dut y to de fen d i f th e al le ga ti on s i n th e co m pl ai ntim pl ic at e a p ol ic y

ex cl us io n. Stat e Farm Fir e & Ca s. Co . v. Tip pe tt , 86 4 S o. 2 d 3 1, 3 5 (F la . 4t h DCA 2 00 3) .

3Fl or id a West a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d Den i Ass oc ia tes o

f Fl or id a, In c. v. St at e Farm Fir e & Ca su al tyIns ur an ce Co . , 71 1 S o. 2d11 35 (Fl a. 19 98 ). Spe ci fic al ly, Fl or id a West c on te nd s t ha t the di st ric t co urt im pr op erl y rel ie d o n t he di ct io na ry

de fin it io ns of “ irr it an t” an d “ co nt am in an t” wit ho utco ns id eri ng whet he r m il li ng s ar e irrit an ts or c on tam in an ts un de r en vi ro nm en ta l re gu la ti on s an d c as e la w fro m ot he r juri sd ic ti on s. Co mpa re id. at 11 41 (lo ok in g t o Webs te r’s Dict io na ry , th e Fed eral Cle anAir Act , andothe r juri sd ic ti on s i n fi nd in g tha t amm on iafumes co ns ti tu te d apo ll ut an t) wi th id
. at 11 38 (reject in g a rg um en t tha t the co urt i gn or e th e p ol ic y de fin it io n o f “po ll ut an ts ” or“ li m itth e te rm

so th atitis de fin edin th e m an ne r em pl oyed b y en vi ro nm en ta l en gi ne ers ”). Fl or id a West a ls o a rg ue s t ha t the co urt erredin ev enco ns id eri ng whe th er m il li ng s co ns ti tu te d apo ll ut an t b ecau se th e u nd erl y in g c om pl ai ntall eg ed th atba ct eri a cau se d t he in fect io n. W e d is ag ree. Ina th or ou gh an d wel l-r eas on edop in io n, t he di stric t co urt reco gn iz edth atth e al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntco nt ro l, an d c on fin edit s an al y si s to th os e fac ts . Se e Ti

pp et t , 86 4 S o. 2 d a t 3 3. Fo r in st an ce, Szabo all eg edth at

“ [t]he wate r ret en ti on an d fl oo di ng m ix edwith m il li ng s . . . cau se d [h im ] to co nt ractba ct eri al po is on in g a ndin jury.” W e are no t p ers ua de d b y Flo rid a West’s

4co nt en ti on th atSzab o a ll eg edth atth e b act eri a, rat he r th anth e m il li ng s, caus edth e

in fect io n. W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t, p ur su an t t o areas on ab le read in g o f th e co m pl ai nt , m il li ng s m ix edwith fl oo d wat er co ns ti tu te d a“po ll ut an t” withi n t he m ean in g o f th e ab so lu te po ll ut io n e xc lu si on . The co urt co rrec tl y lo ok edto th e di ct io na ry

de fin it io ns of “ co nt am in an t” an d “ irr it an t” in co ns tru in g t he ex cl us io n, an d t he co urt p ro pe rly no te d t ha t, ac co rd in g t o S zab o’s co m pl ai nt , th e p res en ce o f m il li ng s i n t he wate r is pre ci se ly wha t caus edhi s i nju rie s. Im po rtant ly, th e d is tri ct co urt n ot edth atitis a pr oduc t’s “ ab il it y to pro du ce an irr it at in g e ffec t [t ha t] pl aces th e p ro du ct [] with in th e p ol ic ie s’ def in it io n o f an‘ irr it an t.’” Tech ni ca l Co at in g App li ca to rs , Inc . v. U.S. Fid . &Gua r. Co . , 15 7 F .3d84 3, 8 45 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ci ti ng Den i , 71 1 S o. 2 d a t 1 13 9) . “ Co ns eque nt ly, a p ro du ctth atcau se s n o h arm whe n u se d p ro pe rly sti ll m ay be cla ss ifi edas apo ll ut an t u nd er the ex cl us io n: ‘ It can ob vi ou sl y

cau se ha rm

when itis no t u se d p ro pe rly.’ ” Id. (ci ti ng Den i , 71 1 S o. 2dat 1 14 1) . It i s o f no m om en t tha t the co m pl ai ntdo es no t ac tu al ly use th e wor ds

“ irr it an t,” “ co nt am in an t,” “ po ll ut an t,” o r “po ll ut io n,” as F lo rid a West s ug ge st s. Se e Amerisu re Ins . Co. v. Go ld Co as t Ma ri ne Dis tr ib s., In c. , 77 1 S o. 2 d 5 79 , 58 2 (Fl a. 4t h DCA 2 00 0) (ex pl ai ni ng ho w cov erag e d oe s n otde pe ndon art fu l p le ad in g orth e in cl us io n o f certa in “bu zz wo rd s” ). 5Acco rd in g t o S zab o’s co m pl ai nt , he c on tra ct edba ct eri al po is on in g a nd in fect io n fr om

m il li ng s, wh ic h F lo rid a West a ll owe d t o m ix with fl oo d wat er. W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t “ [w]hil e m il li ng s m ay no t i nf li ctin jury und er no rm al cir cum st an ces , m il li ng s ar e al le ge d t o h av e p ro du cedba ct eri al po is on in g an d i nf ect io n, wh ic h c ert ai nl y

are ‘irri ta ti ng effe ct s.’” Thu s, u nd er the fact s al le ge d i n S zab o’s co m

pl ai nt , th e m il li ng s co ns ti tu te d apo ll ut an t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . 1 AFFIRMED.

Be causewe a ffirm the a pplication of the pollution ex clusion, we ne ed not addr ess 1 Florida West’s arguments reg arding the applica

bility of the a bsorbtion/inhalation/dis ease exclusion. 6