Court Opinion

ID: 9960106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 14:01:26.809682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:11.320553
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13141   Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 04/15/2024   Page: 1 of 9

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13141
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE,
                                           Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant
                                                             Appellee,
       versus
       CONCOURSE PLAZA A CONDOMINIUM
       ASSOCIATION, INC.,

                                          Defendant-Counter Claimant
                                                          Appellant.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13141     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/15/2024    Page: 2 of 9

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13141

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21873-BB
                          ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This insurance coverage dispute asks whether Fla. Stat.
       § 627.70132 required that Concourse Plaza’s notice of a
       supplemental claim to its insurer, Great Lakes Insurance SE,
       include an estimate of damages. Consistent with Patios West One
       Condominium Association, Inc. v. American Coastal Insurance Co., No.
       3D22-1895, 2024 WL 24782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2024), we
       conclude that it did not. Accordingly, we reverse the district
       court’s grant of summary judgment for Great Lakes and remand
       for further proceedings.
                                        I.
              Concourse Plaza, a condominium association, purchased a
       commercial property insurance policy from Great Lakes with a
       deductible of $195,210 for the policy year May 17, 2017 through
       May 17, 2018. On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma made
       landfall in Florida and struck Concourse Plaza’s building, causing
       wind and water damage. After being notified by Concourse Plaza
       of the damage, Great Lakes sent an insurance adjuster to inspect
       the property. This adjuster found that the damages to Concourse
       Plaza’s building were $31,035.21, well below the policy’s
USCA11 Case: 22-13141     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 04/15/2024   Page: 3 of 9

       22-13141              Opinion of the Court                       3

       deductible. Accordingly, in March 2018, Great Lakes sent
       Concourse Plaza a letter advising that the net amount of the claim
       was zero.
              Concourse Plaza responded on September 4, 2020—just shy
       of three years after the date its claim accrued. In its letter,
       Concourse Plaza disputed Great Lakes’s damages estimate but did
       not include a competing estimate, instead stating that Concourse
       Plaza was “currently in the process of effecting its own damage
       assessment.” The letter also advised that Great Lakes should
       “consider this correspondence as the Insured’s notice of its intent
       to pursue additional insurance benefits under the Policy for the
       Loss” in accordance with both the policy’s notice provisions and
       Fla. Stat. § 627.70132.
             On April 8, 2021, Concourse Plaza formally submitted a
       proof of loss statement, providing a damages estimate of
       $6,403,728.62. Because Concourse Plaza and Great Lakes disputed
       the amount of damages, Concourse Plaza also invoked its
       contractual appraisal remedy. Concourse Plaza later lowered its
       estimate to $3,276,080.50 while maintaining its appraisal demand.
              After receiving Concourse Plaza’s appraisal demand, Great
       Lakes filed suit. It sought a declaratory judgment ruling that
       Concourse Plaza’s September 2020 letter did not constitute a valid
       notice of a supplemental insurance claim under Fla. Stat.
       § 627.70132 and that Concourse Plaza had therefore failed to
       provide qualifying notice within the statutory three-year period
       following landfall of the hurricane.           Concourse Plaza
USCA11 Case: 22-13141      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/15/2024     Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13141

       counterclaimed, seeking to compel its contractual appraisal
       remedy and damages for breach of contract.
              Both parties moved for summary judgment. Relying on
       Goldberg v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 302 So. 3d
       919 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020), the district court held that Fla. Stat.
       § 627.70132 requires an insured party’s notice of a supplemental
       claim to include an estimate of claimed damages. Because
       Concourse Plaza’s September 2020 letter did not do so, the court
       ruled Concourse Plaza had failed to provide qualifying notice
       within three years as required by the statute. Accordingly, the
       court granted summary judgment to Great Lakes. Concourse
       Plaza appeals.
                                         II.
              We review a district court’s interpretation of state law de
       novo. Jones v. United Space All., L.L.C., 494 F.3d 1306, 1309 (11th
       Cir. 2007).
                                        III.
              We begin with the proper interpretation of Fla. Stat.
       § 627.70132. At the time of the dispute, the relevant portion of that
       statute read:
              A claim, supplemental claim, or reopened claim
              under an insurance policy that provides property
              insurance, as defined in s. 624.604, for loss or damage
              caused by the peril of windstorm or hurricane is
              barred unless notice of the claim, supplemental claim,
              or reopened claim was given to the insurer in
USCA11 Case: 22-13141        Document: 30-1       Date Filed: 04/15/2024        Page: 5 of 9

       22-13141                 Opinion of the Court                              5

              accordance with the terms of the policy within 3 years
              after the hurricane first made landfall or the
              windstorm caused the covered damage. For purposes
              of this section, the term “supplemental claim” or
              “reopened claim” means any additional claim for
              recovery from the insurer for losses from the same
              hurricane or windstorm which the insurer has
              previously adjusted pursuant to the initial claim.
       Fla. Stat. § 627.70132 (2011). 1
              Concourse Plaza argues that the plain text of the statute
       requires only that an insured’s notice of a supplemental claim
       comply “with the terms of the policy,” meaning that the notice
       need not include an estimate of damages if none is required by the
       insurance contract. Great Lakes, on the other hand, argues that
       any notice of a supplemental claim under the statute must include
       an estimate of damages by the insured.
              When interpreting state law, a federal court “is bound to
       adhere to decisions of the state’s intermediate appellate courts
       absent some persuasive indication that the state’s highest court
       would decide the issue otherwise.” Silverberg v. Paine, Webber,
       Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 710 F.2d 678, 690 (11th Cir. 1983). “A federal
       court is bound by this rule whether or not the court agrees with
       the reasoning on which the state court’s decision is based or the
       outcome which the decision dictates.” Id. If the state’s appellate

       1 Fla. Stat. § 627.70132 has since been amended.  Both parties agree that the
       pre-amendment version of the statute, in effect from June 1, 2011 to June 30,
       2021, applies to this dispute.
USCA11 Case: 22-13141       Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 04/15/2024      Page: 6 of 9

       6                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13141

       courts disagree on a principle of state law, “we look to the decisions
       of the [state] appellate court that would have had jurisdiction over
       an appeal in this case had it been filed in state court.” Bravo v. United
       States, 532 F.3d 1154, 1164 (11th Cir. 2008).
               In this case, there are no relevant decisions from the Florida
       Supreme Court interpreting § 627.70132. Two Florida appellate
       courts, however, have weighed in. The first is Goldberg v. Universal
       Property & Casualty Insurance Co., from Florida’s Fourth District
       Court of Appeal. In Goldberg, the court examined whether an
       insured party “was required to submit a supplemental claim before
       filing suit for additional payment for” its loss. 302 So. 3d at 923.
       Finding that the insured’s attempt to claim additional payment for
       an already adjusted loss qualified as a supplemental claim under
       § 627.70132, the court concluded that the insured “was required to
       file a supplemental claim setting forth those damages he sought in
       excess of what the insurance company had already paid.” Id. The
       court stated that a “competing estimate by an insured’s
       independent adjuster, or by a prospective contractor” would
       suffice. Id. at 924.
              The second state appellate court decision on point was
       issued after the district court granted summary judgment to Great
       Lakes below. In Patios West One Condominium Association, Inc. v.
       American Coastal Insurance Co., Florida’s Third District Court of
       Appeal held that § 627.70132 does not require a notice of a
       supplemental claim to contain an estimate of additional damages.
       2024 WL 24782, at *5. Instead, the statute requires only that “the
USCA11 Case: 22-13141         Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 04/15/2024         Page: 7 of 9

       22-13141                  Opinion of the Court                                7

       notice of a supplemental or reopened claim (1) be ‘given to the
       insurer in accordance with the terms of the policy’ and
       (2) constitute an ‘additional claim for recovery’ for losses from ‘the
       same hurricane.’” Id. (quoting Fla. Stat. § 627.70132).
               The Patios court explicitly rejected Goldberg’s statement that
       § 627.70132 required a damages estimate, reasoning that the
       statute’s plain text did not contain any such requirement and that
       the statute was not a “supplemental claim statute” but a “notice of
       supplemental claim statute,” delineating only the time period in
       which an insured must give notice to its insurer of the existence
       (but not the precise amount) of a supplemental claim. Id. It also
       dismissed this portion of Goldberg as nonbinding dicta. Id. at *4–5,
       *5 n.6.
              Concourse Plaza urges this Court to follow Patios, arguing
       that Goldberg is both factually distinguishable and wrongly decided.
       We need not determine whether Goldberg would apply to this case,
       however, because as a federal court applying state law, we are
       bound to apply Patios in any event. This lawsuit originated in the
       Miami Division of the United States District Court for the Southern
       District of Florida. “State courts located there are within the
       territory of, and are bound to follow decisions issued by, the Third
       District Court of Appeal.” Bravo, 532 F.3d at 1164. Therefore,
       because this is an appeal of a case arising out of the Miami Division,
       we apply the Third District Court of Appeal’s Patios decision. 2 To

       2 Although Patios was issued after the district court’s summary judgment order

       in this case, we still must apply it on appeal. Erie requires this Court to give
USCA11 Case: 22-13141         Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 04/15/2024         Page: 8 of 9

       8                          Opinion of the Court                       22-13141

       the extent Patios conflicts with Goldberg, we follow Patios, as
       Goldberg was decided by the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
       Accordingly, in order for Concourse Plaza’s September 2020 letter
       to qualify as a valid notice of a supplemental claim under
       § 627.70132, it must have been “given to the insurer in accordance
       with the terms of the policy” and “constitute an additional claim
       for recovery for losses from the same hurricane.” Patios, 2024 WL
       24782, at *5 (quotation omitted).
              No one disputes that Concourse Plaza’s September 2020
       letter sought additional recovery for losses from the same
       hurricane—Hurricane Irma—as the original claim. And Great
       Lakes concedes that the insurance policy by itself “does not impose
       a requirement to provide an estimate of damages.” Concourse
       Plaza’s September 2020 letter therefore qualifies as a notice of a
       supplemental claim under Fla. Stat. § 627.70132. Because it was
       sent within three years of the date Hurricane Irma made landfall,
       the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 627.70132 were satisfied.

       the same effect to an intervening appellate decision that Florida’s state
       appellate courts would. Cf. Samuels v. Doctors Hosp., Inc., 588 F.2d 485, 488–89
       (5th Cir. 1979). In Florida, the rule is clear: a subsequent panel of a district
       court of appeal must follow a precedent set by a prior panel unless that
       precedent is overturned by the Florida Supreme Court or the district court of
       appeal sitting en banc. Nat’l Med. Imaging, L.L.C. v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., 347
       So. 3d 63, 64 n.2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020). Therefore, because the Third
       District Court of Appeal would apply Patios here, so must we.
USCA11 Case: 22-13141   Document: 30-1   Date Filed: 04/15/2024   Page: 9 of 9

       22-13141           Opinion of the Court                     9

                              *     *     *
            We REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary
       judgment to Great Lakes and REMAND for further proceedings.