Opinion ID: 1874942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Employer's Liability Insurance Policy

Text: At the time of the explosion, PCR was insured by Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) under a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Policy. As its name suggests, this was a dual-coverage policy. Part One, entitled Workers Compensation Insurance, provided that Travelers would pay promptly when due the benefits required of [PCR] by the workers compensation law. Part Two, entitled Employers Liability Insurance, provided that Travelers would pay all sums [PCR] legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury to [PCR's] employees, provided the bodily injury is covered by this Employers Liability Insurance. Part Two's coverage applied only to claims of bodily injury by accident ... aris[ing] out of and in the course of the injured employee's employment by [PCR]. Additionally, Part Two enumerated several exclusions from coverage, one of which was that [t]his insurance does not cover ... bodily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by [PCR]. [7] After our decision in Turner, Travelers brought a declaratory-judgment action in the federal district court to determine whether it was obligated under Part Two of the Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Policy to defend or indemnify PCR against the claims brought by PCR's injured employees in the underlying tort suits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of PCR, holding that the claims in the underlying tort suits were covered by the policy because the injury-intentionally-caused exclusion applied only if the insured specifically intended to cause injury. See Travelers Indem. Co., 326 F.3d at 1192. On appeal, the federal court of appeals was unsure how Florida law would interpret the policy. The court recognized that two of Florida's district courts of appeal had interpreted identical exclusionary clauses to apply only when the insured acted with the specific intent to cause injury. Id. at 1193-94 (citing Cloud v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 248 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), and Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Helton, 298 So.2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)). The court, however, was unsure whether our decision in Turner affected this line of cases. The court noted that if Cloud and Helton controlled, Travelers could remain liable for what might be interpreted [under Turner ] as PCR's `intentional' torts if the torts were committed without specific intent to cause injury to the employees. Id. at 1194. Because [t]he law of Florida on point seem[ed] debatable, the court certified the following questions: 1. Does Florida insurance law require a reading of specific intent into an insurance clause excepting from liability coverage [b]odily injury intentionally caused or aggravated by the insured? 2. Is PCR in this case entitled to liability coverage based on the language of this policy agreement, read in the light of Florida's law of interpreting insurance policies? Id.