Case Name: GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. UNITED CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida Corporation, United Christian Evangelistic Association of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, United Christian Evangelistic Association, Inc., Frederick "Ike" Eikerenkooter, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants, Augusto Medina, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-18
Citations: 270 F. App'x 766
Docket Number: No. 07-11586
Parties: GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. UNITED CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida Corporation, United Christian Evangelistic Association of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, United Christian Evangelistic Association, Inc., Frederick “Ike” Eikerenkooter, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants, Augusto Medina, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 270
Pages: 766–766

Head Matter:
GUIDEONE SPECIALTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. UNITED CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida Corporation, United Christian Evangelistic Association of Florida, Inc., a Florida Corporation, United Christian Evangelistic Association, Inc., Frederick “Ike” Eikerenkooter, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellants, Augusto Medina, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-11586
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 18, 2008.
Roderick Flynn Coleman, Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Leonard K. Samuels, Berger Singerman, FT Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellant.
Leonard K. Samuels, Berger Singerman, FT Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before DUBINA, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court's judgment, after a bench trial, that Appel-lee GuideOne Specialty Mutual Insurance Company has no duty to defend and/or indemnify Appellants in the underlying action brought against Appellants by Augus-to Medina. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the record, we conclude the district court did not err and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's well-reasoned order of March 9, 2007.
AFFIRMED.