Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. 16–cv–61220–BLOOM/Valle
Decision Date | 28 March 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16–cv–61220–BLOOM/Valle |
Parties | ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Sheryl Suzanne Natelson, Stephen Hunter Johnson, Lydecker | Diaz, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Brett Russell Bloch, Gary Robert Shendell, Shendell & Pollock, P.L., Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich"), ECF No. [27], and Defendant National Specialty Insurance Company ("National"), ECF No. [19], (collectively, the "Motions"). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, the record, all supporting and opposing filings, the exhibits attached thereto, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. For the reasons that follow, Zurich's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and National's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
Mikhael Maroudis ("Maroudis"), an employee of Diner 84, Inc. ("Diner 84"), filed a lawsuit against Davie Plaza, LLC ("Davie Plaza") in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida ("Underlying Lawsuit"). ECF No. [25] (Pl. Ctr. Stat. Facts) ¶ 1 ("Undisputed Facts")1 ; ECF No. [27–1]. Maroudis later passed away from causes unrelated to the Underlying Lawsuit, and his personal representative pursued these claims on behalf of Maroudis's estate. Undisputed Facts ¶ 1.
The Second Amended Complaint filed in the Underlying Lawsuit alleged that, on June 22, 2007, Maroudis's supervisor told him to climb onto the roof of Diner 84 to repair a leak.2 Id. ¶ 4. To do so, Maroudis's supervisor instructed him to use Diner 84's ladder, climb to the first level of the roof, and then use the same ladder to climb onto the second level. Id. ¶ 5. Maroudis positioned the ladder one foot outside of Diner 84's rear kitchen door and leaned the top of the ladder against the building. Id. ¶ 6, 7. He then placed the bottom of the ladder on an uneven surface that divides the asphalt from the concrete. Id. ¶ 7; Def. Stat. Facts ¶ 2(e); ECF No. 20–1 at 57–58, 65, 80, 89–90, and 99–101. After climbing onto Diner 84's roof and taking care of the leak, Maroudis descended the ladder, and as he did so, it shifted and caused him to fall to the ground. Undisputed Facts ¶ 3, 8; ECF No. [27–2] ¶ 12–14.
Maroudis pursued a negligence claim against Davie Plaza to recover for personal injuries, alleging that Davie Plaza "failed to provide a reasonably safe premises at that time that it turned over the property to its tenant." ECF No. [19] ("Def. Stat. Facts") ¶ 2(f). The Underlying Lawsuit culminated in a jury trial, and on September 11, 2015, a jury entered a verdict in the amount of $15,212,930.77. Def. Stat. Facts ¶ 2(h); ECF No. [19–3]. The jury found that the negligence of Davie Plaza, "84 Diner" and Maroudis were a legal cause of loss, injury or damage to Maroudis. Id. In apportioning liability, the jury found Davie Plaza 98% at fault while Maroudis and "84 Diner" were each 1% at fault. Id.
National issued a commercial general liability policy to Diner 84, No. RCE400595–07, in effect from June 14, 2007 to June 14, 2008 with policy limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate ("National policy"). Undisputed Facts ¶ 9; Def. Stat. Facts ¶ 2(b); ECF No. [27–3] at 3. The National policy contains an Additional Insured–Managers and Lessors of Premises Endorsement ("Endorsement") which, on July 25, 2007, was amended to specifically reference Davie Plaza. Undisputed Facts ¶ 10, 11; Def. Stat. Facts ¶ 2(b); ECF No. [27–3] at 2. The Endorsement provides as follows:
Undisputed Facts ¶ 11; ECF No. [27–3] at 91. The Endorsement identifies the premises leased to Diner 84 as "11432 W STATE RD 84 FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33325." ECF No. [27–3] at 91.
In addition, Davie Plaza is a named insured under a commercial general liability insurance policy, No. GLO8445651–07, issued by Zurich and in effect from June 1, 2007 to June 1, 2008 ("Zurich policy"). Undisputed Facts ¶ 16; ECF No. [27–4]. Both the Zurich and the National policies contain identical "Other Insurance" clauses that, in pertinent part, state:
On July 27, 2011, Zurich's counsel sent a letter to National and Diner 84 in which it tendered Davie Plaza's defense and indemnity for the claims in the Underlying Lawsuit. Undisputed Facts ¶ 17. National declined to defend or indemnify Davie Plaza under the National policy, stating that Maroudis's incident occurred in a "Common Area" under the lease between Diner 84 and Davie Plaza. Id. ¶ 18. To date, Zurich has incurred $168,502.95 in fees and costs relating to the defense of the underlying lawsuit. Id. ¶ 19.3
On November 28, 2001, TNA Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a 84 Diner entered into a lease agreement with Davie Plaza for the lease of certain space located at 11426 State Road in Davie, Florida ("the Lease"). Def. Stat. Facts ¶ 2(a); ECF No. [19–1] at 1, 6.4 The Lease contains the following definitions:
The Lease also contains the following language involving control of the "Common Area":
Pursuant to its right of subrogation, Zurich filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Damages in this Court seeking a declaration that Davie Plaza is as an additional insured under the National policy (Count I), that National is obligated to defend and pay the defense costs of Davie Plaza for the Underlying Lawsuit on a primary and non-contributory basis (Count II), and that National is obligated to indemnify Davie Plaza for any liability in the Underlying Lawsuit on a primary and non-contributory basis (Count III). See ECF No. [1]. In addition, Zurich seeks damages arising from National's alleged breach of contract with Davie Plaza (Count IV). National and Zurich filed cross-motions for summary judgment on January 3, 2017 and January 23, 2017 respectively. See ECF Nos. [19] and [27]. The parties' Responses and Replies timely followed. See ECF Nos. [24], [29], and [31].
The parties have filed and briefed cross-motions for summary judgment on the same legal issue—whether Davie Plaza is an additional insured under the National policy and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marquez v. Nat'l Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...ordinary contract principles govern the interpretation and construction of such a policy." Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co. , 246 F. Supp. 3d 1347, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (citation omitted). As such, "insurance contracts are construed according to their plain meaning." Garcia ......
-
Marquez v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
... ... exhibits, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is ... otherwise fully ... Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co. , ... 246 ... ...
- Gonzalez v. Batmasian
-
Alamo-Cruz v. Evanston Ins. Co.
...whether an insurance provision is ambiguous—is a question of law to be determined by the court." Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Specialty Ins. Co. , 246 F.Supp.3d 1347, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2017).3 "Vizcaya Museum & Gardens is an attraction in Miami–Dade County which is comprised of an estate know......