Hiscox Ins. Co. v. Watford Specialty Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 December 2022
• Docket Number: 21-CV-62595-RAR
• Parties: HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC., Plaintiff, v. WATFORD SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC., Plaintiff,
v.
WATFORD SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 21-CV-62595-RAR

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

December 23, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Hiscox Insurance Company Inc.'s Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 38] (“Hiscox's Motion”) and Defendant Watford Specialty Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 39] (“Watford's Motion”). Having reviewed the briefing,^[1] the record, applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Watford's Motion [ECF No. 39] is GRANTED and Hiscox's Motion [ECF No. 38] is DENIED as set forth herein.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a sexual-assault lawsuit brought against Hiscox and Watford's mutual insured, Big Time Restaurant Group. See [ECF No. 40] (“Watford SMF”) ¶ 1. Hiscox's insurance policy provided coverage for Employee Practices Liability (“EPL”), while Watford's insurance policy provided coverage for Commercial General Liability and Liquor Liability

1

(“CGL”). See Id. ¶¶ 3, 5. To resolve the underlying sexual-assault action against Big Time, Hiscox admitted coverage and paid the full amount of the settlement reached between Big Time and the plaintiff. See Id. ¶ 1. In contrast, Watford denied coverage, asserting that liability for the sexual assault-which was alleged to have been committed by an employee of Big Time-did not fall within the bounds of Watford's CGL policy. See Id. ¶ 10. After paying the settlement, Hiscox brought the instant action, seeking equitable contribution from Watford for one-half of the settlement paid to the plaintiff. See Id. ¶¶ 1, 11.

The parties have now moved for summary judgment. The central issue is whether Watford's CGL policy provided coverage for the underlying sexual-assault action, thus entitling Hiscox to seek equitable contribution from Watford. Compare Hiscox Mot. at 6 (“The language of . . . the WATFORD Policy plainly and unambiguously provides coverage for the allegations in the Underlying Action.”), with Watford Mot. at 7 (“The Watford CGL Policy, in Contrast to the Hiscox EPL Policy, Unambiguously Excludes Coverage for the Employee Lawsuit.”). Watford also argues that Hiscox-as a non-party to the Watford CGL policy-cannot suggest that Watford's CGL policy provides coverage beyond what Watford and Big Time agreed to when entering into the policy. See Watford Mot. at 12.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows 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). The parties may show the presence or absence of a genuine dispute of material fact by citing “the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations[,] . . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Id. R. 56(c). A fact is “material” if it is a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law, such

2

that the fact might affect the outcome of the case. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997). A dispute as to a material fact is “genuine” if “the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Id.

II. Equitable Contribution

Under Florida law,^[2] the doctrine of equitable contribution exists “to prevent one of two . . . joint obligors [from] being required to pay more than his share of a common burden, or to prevent one obligor from being unjustly benefited or enriched at the expense of another.” Lopez v. Lopez, 90 So.2d 456, 458 (Fla. 1956). The foundational element of a claim for equitable contribution is that the...