Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hub City Enters., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 6:18-cv-1608-Orl-41GJK |
| Citation | 418 F.Supp.3d 1060 |
| Parties | PRINCETON EXCESS AND SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. HUB CITY ENTERPRISES, INC., Wall St. Enterprises of Orlando, Inc., and Robert Hunt, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Frederick W. Mohre, Pearson Doyle Mohre & Pastis LLP, Maitland, FL, Jordon S. Steinway, Pro Hac Vice, Bates Carey, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Kenneth Blair Rugh, Steven R. S. Main, Hill & Rugh, Keller & Main, PL, Orlando, FL, Christopher S. Reed, Law Offices of Michael B. Brehne, PA, Altamonte Springs, FL, for Defendants.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 27) and Defendant Hub City Enterprises, Inc.'s and Defendant Wall St. Enterprises of Orlando, Inc.'s ("Joint Defendants") Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("MSJ," Doc. 30). Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition (Doc. 31) to the MSJ, and Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 34). Plaintiff also filed an Agreed Motion to Clarify/Motion to Stay Pretrial and Trial Deadlines ("Agreed Motion," Doc. 36). For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be granted in part and denied in part, the MSJ will be denied, and the Agreed Motion will be denied as moot.
This is a declaratory judgment action involving whether Plaintiff has a duty to defend Joint Defendants in an underlying lawsuit brought by Defendant Robert Hunt arising out of injuries caused by a large inflatable beach ball. As a threshold matter, Joint Defendants contend that this Court should look to uncontroverted facts outside the underlying complaint regarding the large inflatable beach ball to determine that there is no duty to defend, citing, among other cases, Composite Structures, Inc. v. Cont'l Ins. Co. , 560 F. App'x 861, 865–66 (11th Cir. 2014) and Victoria Select Ins. Co. v. Vrchota Corp. , 805 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2011). However, "[t]o determine whether [the insurer] had a duty to defend [the insured], the Court looks only to the allegations in the Underlying Complaint and the terms of the Policy." Evanston Ins. Co. v. Haven S. Beach, LLC , 152 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1374 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added) (citing Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n , 908 So. 2d 435, 442–43 (Fla. 2005) ); see also Goldberg v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. , 143 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2015) ("[A]n insurer's duty to defend its insured against legal action depends solely on the facts and legal theories alleged in the pleadings and the claims against the insured" (citing Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. JDC (Am.) Corp. , 52 F.3d 1575, 1580 (11th Cir. 1995) ).
In Composite Structures , the Court considered evidence of the date notice was provided to the insurer, which was not in the underlying complaint because the date of notice would not typically be alleged in a complaint, and the fact was uncontroverted. In this case, the parties dispute whether or not an inflatable beach ball was a decoration or an amusement device and the Joint Defendants seek to introduce "facts" outside the underlying complaint that the beach ball was used as a decoration. Those facts are not uncontroverted. In fact, it is the basis of Joint Defendants' MSJ argument for coverage and directly conflicts with Plaintiff's assertion that the ball was an amusement device.
Vrchota is similarly inapplicable. It holds that Courts may consider evidence beyond the underlying complaint and policy when an insured notifies the insurer of facts that would potentially place the claim within the policy and the insurer fails to do a reasonable investigation of those facts. Vrchota is distinguishable, not binding on this Court, and cites no Florida cases in support. And, the Eleventh Circuit has since stated "such cases are best viewed ‘as exceptional cases in which courts have crafted an equitable remedy when it is manifestly obvious to all involved that the actual facts placed the claims outside the scope of coverage .’ " Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co. , 749 F.3d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting First Specialty Ins. v. 633 Partners, *1324 Ltd. , 300 F. App'x 777, 786 (11th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). Joint Defendants wish to use outside evidence to place the claim within coverage, not outside of it. Thus, the consideration of evidence outside of the underlying complaint and departure from the general principle is not warranted here. Additionally, in light of this conclusion, and the fact that the underlying complaint was incorporated into the Complaint in this case, the filings relied on by the Court for both Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and for Joint Defendants' MSJ are the same.
On May 21, 2018, Defendant Hunt brought an underlying tort suit against the Joint Defendants, seeking to recover for personal injuries he sustained while attending Joint Defendant's festival called "Rum Fest 2017." (See generally Hunt Compl., Doc. 1-1). Hunt's Complaint ("underlying complaint") alleges that during the party, a crowd gathered to listen to music and dance, and that "an extra-large, heavy inflatable beach ball" provided by Joint Defendants was "thrown into the crowd for people to push it around in the air." (Id. ¶ 8). Hunt further alleges that the ball was knocked towards him, and that he used his "outstretched arms and hands to push the extra-large beach ball away from him to prevent it from hitting him in the head," which resulted in "severe ligament and tendon injuries
." (Id. ¶¶ 9–10).
Plaintiff issued a commercial general liability policy to Joint Defendants, which was in effect during the relevant time period. (Am. Compl. ¶ 21; see also Policy, Doc. 1-2,1 at 2). The policy requires Plaintiff to defend and indemnify Joint Defendants against claims of bodily injury or property damage to which insurance applies. (Doc. 1-2 at 41). Plaintiff received notice of the underlying lawsuit in July 2018 and agreed to provide a defense. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit seeking declaratory judgment that Plaintiff owes no defense or indemnity obligation in the underlying tort suit. The parties dispute whether the endorsement to the policy exclusion labeled "Exclusion – Amusement Device" applies. (Id. at 19). Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney's fees, which Joint Defendants argue should be denied.
Rule 12(c) provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." "Judgment on the pleadings ... is appropriate when there are no material facts in dispute, and judgment may be rendered by considering the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts." Horsley v. Rivera , 292 F.3d 695, 700 (11th Cir. 2002). For practical purposes, a Rule 12(c) motion is subject to the same standard of review as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. United States v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr. , 997 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2014). Under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, a court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer , 556 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Furthermore, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if it may "affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Id. "The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial." Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 495 F.3d 1306, 1313–14 (11th Cir. 2007). Stated differently, the moving party discharges its burden by showing "that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
However, once the moving party has discharged its burden, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quotation omitted). The nonmoving party may not rely solely on "conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts." Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, "[i]f there is a conflict between the parties' allegations or evidence, the [nonmoving] party's evidence is presumed to be true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the [nonmoving] party's favor." Allen , 495 F.3d at 1314.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatcher v. Hatcher
...in American English for the final item in a list to not be preceded by a comma." Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Hub City Enterprises, Inc. , 418 F. Supp. 3d 1060, 1066-67 (M.D. Fla. 2019). Although the use of a serial comma can aid in interpretation, "caution should be ex......
- Int'l Ship Repair & Marine Servs., Inc. v. Barge B. 215