Opinion ID: 184144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admiral policy

Text: Under Florida law, “the laws of the jurisdiction where the contract was executed govern interpretation of substantive issues regarding the contract.” Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. August, 530 So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 1988). Therefore, because Precision’s Admiral insurance policy was executed in Texas, Texas law governs whether Rolyn is entitled to recover under that policy as an additional-insured and whether exclusions apply. The parties do not assert any 2 Because we agree that the CGL policy’s voluntary-payment provision precludes recovery of any of the costs incurred by Rolyn to repair damages to the building at issue, we need not reach Rolyn’s objection to the district court’s determination that damages were also barred by exclusions in the policy related to asbestos and mold. 7 significant difference between Florida and Texas law. We conclude that the district court properly decided that the Roofing Operations Exclusion in the Admiral policy precluded coverage by Admiral. It reads as follows: ROOFING OPERATIONS – LIMITATION OF COVERAGE .... This insurance does not apply to “property damage” to any building, structure or the contents thereof, caused by your failure or the failure of any subcontractor working on your behalf: 1. To properly cover any unfinished roof or section of roof during the course of roofing operations against the influx of wind, rain, sleet, hail, snow or any other substance. Rolyn Cos., 671 F. Supp. 2d at 1336–37. Rolyn does not dispute that at the time of the rain event at issue, the roof was yet to be completed with “tapered roof insulation, at least one more layer of felt to be ‘mopped in,’ a termination bar and counter-flashings.” App. Reply Br. 25 (quoting Admiral Ans. Br. 15). Rather, the argument is that Precision would not be expected to place a tarp over the roof at this “dried in” stage. Thus, there is no genuine issue of fact that the roof was “unfinished” when a heavy rain caused the damage. While the roof may have been “dried in,” it was not “properly covered” so as to prevent rain incursion. Therefore, summary judgment in favor 8 of Admiral was property granted.3 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED. 3 Because Admiral is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Roofing Operations Exclusion in the Admiral policy, we need not address the additional-insured issue. 9