Opinion ID: 3057456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Coverage Under the POELI Endorsement

Text: On appeal, State National argues that Ogden’s § 1983 claims were excluded from coverage by the POELI endorsement’s exclusion for “willful violation of any statute.”3 We agree with the district court that Ogden’s federal gender 2 We review the grant of summary judgment, as well as the interpretation of an insurance contract, de novo. See James River Ins. Co. v. Ground Down Eng’g, Inc., 540 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008). In this diversity case, Florida law governs as to the insurance policy. See Dempsey v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 717 F.2d 556, 559 (11th Cir. 1983). 3 On appeal, State National does not challenge the district court’s conclusions that: (1) some of Ogden’s claims for damages were not excluded by the mental anguish exclusion; (2) State National’s duty to reimburse under the SIR endorsement was determined by the allegations 8 Case: 11-15905 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 9 of 13 discrimination and sexual harassment claims arose from violation of the U.S. Constitution and did not “arise from” a violation of a “statute.” Section 1983 is a remedial statute that “creates no substantive rights,” but merely provides a means to bring claims of constitutional violations, in this case the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. See Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 934 (11th Cir. 1989). The POELI endorsement unambiguously excluded only those claims arising from violations of statutes. Cf. Penzer v. Transportation Ins. Co., 545 F.3d 1303, 1310 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that phrase “arising out of a willful violation of a penal statute” in an exclusion “easily and logically can be read as limited to the statute giving rise to liability”). Under Florida law, insurance contracts are to be construed “in accordance with the plain language of the policies as bargained for by the parties.” Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000). If State National had wanted to exclude claims arising from constitutional violations, it could have easily done so. As drafted, the exclusion for statutory violations did not exclude Ogden’s equal protection claims brought pursuant to § 1983. in Ogden’s complaint and not by the jury’s verdict; and (3) State National’s duty to reimburse in excess of the SIR was triggered if any of the claims in Ogden’s complaint were covered under the POELI endorsement. 9 Case: 11-15905 Date Filed: 07/12/2012 Page: 10 of 13 State National argues that because White’s underlying “wrongful act” violated a state statute, the FCRA, any separate federal claim arising from that same wrongful act is also excluded, “regardless of the legal avenue through which relief is sought.” We disagree. We recognize State National’s exclusion is for any claim “arising from the willful violation of a statute.” Under Florida law, the phrase “arising out of” in an exclusion means “originating from” or “flowing from” and requires some causal connection, but not proximate cause. See Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So.2d 528, 539-40 (Fla. 2009). Similarly, Ogden’s federal claims “arose from” White’s conduct toward, and termination of, Ogden, which she claimed violated the Equal Protection Clause. Her federal claims did not arise from her state FCRA claims. In essence, State National asks us to construe the exclusion to mean that the POELI endorsement does not apply to any claims arising from conduct that is also a willful violation of a statute. As the district court explained, “[a]t best, this argument suggests an ambiguity that must be construed against the Insurer[ ],” rather than in its favor. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 756 So.2d at 34 (explaining that ambiguous exclusionary clauses are construed strictly against the insurer).