The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals just certified two "additional insured" questions to the Supreme Court of Florida:
(1) Will Courts applying Florida Insurance Law hold that a Liability Insurance Policy is "ambiguous" if that policy includes as a covered person "'any other person with respect to liability because of acts or omissions' of the insured"?
and
(2) Will Courts applying Florida Insurance Law hold that a Liability Insurance Policy is limited to otherwise extending Coverage ONLY to where the additional insured is "vicariously liable" where the Liability Policy extends Coverage to additional insureds "'with respect to liability because of acts or omissions' of the named insured"?
Here is a link to the Eleventh Circuit's questions in Maria Garcia v. Federal Insurance Co. (11th Cir. Opinion No. 05-14720, Questions Certified December 26, 2006).
In Florida, the answers to questions about whether a person or entity is an "additional insured" often depend on the Insurance Policy language and on whether, under substantive law, the putative "additional insured" is actually or potentially vicariously liable for the conduct of the Named Insured, in basic terms.
In Garcia, the Federal Trial Judge dismissed Ms. Garcia's lawsuit against Federal Insurance Company on these facts reported by the Eleventh Circuit on December 26, 2006, above. The issues are not unfamiliar to many in Florida and in the United States outside of Florida.
As reported by the Eleventh Circuit, Federal issued a Homeowners Policy that insured one Laura Anderson. "Maria Garcia worked as a caregiver for Laura Anderson," and Ms. Garcia "served as a housekeeper and also ran errands" for Ms. Anderson in a used Volvo owned by a member of Ms. Anderson's family. Slipsheet Opinion at 2. Ms. Garcia had an accident with the Volvo in which the car struck one Gail Archer, "causing serious injuries." Ms. Archer sued Ms. Anderson and Ms. Garcia, among others. The Archer complaint alleged that Anderson was vicariously liable for Garcia's actions and omissions, but the claim of Anderson's vicarious liability does not appear to have been at issue for Insurance Coverage.
What was at issue for Insurance Coverage was Ms. Archer's claim that Ms. Anderson and Ms. Garcia "negligently failed to maintain the car". Slipsheet at 3. Federal Insurance Company settled all claims against its Named Insured, Ms. Anderson, but denied any Coverage under the Anderson Homeowner's Policy for the claims alleged against Ms. Garcia. "Garcia settled Archer's claim for $7,000,000" and filed suit against Federal for Coverage under Ms. Anderson's Homeowner's Policy issued by Federal. Id.
Perhaps particularly appropriate in this certification, but actually a standard part of the Eleventh Circuit's practice when certifying Florida State Law questions to the Supreme Court of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit openly stated that it did not mean to restrict, "in any way," the Florida Supreme Court's answer to the Eleventh Circuit's questions. The Eleventh Circuit further broadly stated that "the questions posed are just a guide." Slipsheet at 12.
It will be interesting to see what, if any, response the Supreme Court of Florida has to the additional insured issues presented to it by the case of Maria Garcia v. Federal Insurance Co., linked above.
Until then, best wishes to all for a Happy New Year!
REMINDER: THE CONTENTS OF
THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. ALWAYS CONSULT
THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY
FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR INSURANCE ISSUE IN THAT JURISDICTION,
WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
Comments