Coast Investment Group, LLC, et al v. Twin City Fire Insurance Compa

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants V. John Brook and Coast Investment Group, LLC. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-10867

Date Filed: 04/28/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10867
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-00359-CEH-TGW
ABEL BAND, CHARTERED,
a Florida professional association,
Plaintiff,
COAST INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company,
V. JOHN BROOK,
Trustee,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
_______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 28, 2017)

Case: 16-10867

Date Filed: 04/28/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Before HULL, MARCUS, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Coast Investment Group, LLC and John Brook, the bankruptcy Trustee for
the Abel Band law firm, appeal the district court’s order granting judgment on the
pleadings in favor of Twin City Fire Insurance Company. The lawsuit sought a
declaratory judgment establishing a duty by Twin City to defend or indemnify the
Abel Band law firm against Coast’s legal malpractice claims. Coast argues on
appeal that the district court erred in concluding that the malpractice Claim in
Count I was not covered because of the insurance policy’s “Business Enterprise”
exclusion. Upon review, we conclude that the district court got it right.
The insurance policy’s “Business Enterprise” exclusion removes the
following from coverage:
Exclusions – We shall not pay damages or claim expenses in
connection with any claim:
10. Arising out of professional legal services performed for or on
behalf of any organization other than you if, at any time when those
services were performed, the organization was or was intended to be:
a. Directly or indirectly controlled, operated or managed by an
insured[.]
D.E. 2-17 at 21. The exclusion expressly bars any insurance claims arising out of
legal services provided to a business which an insured also manages or operates.

2

Case: 16-10867

Date Filed: 04/28/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Coast and Mr. Brook ask us to reverse the district court and conclude that
insurance coverage extends to losses arising out of allegedly negligent legal advice
that the Abel Band law firm provided through one of its attorneys, Jenifer
Schembri. At the time of the advice, however, David Band was both a partner at
the Abel Band law firm and an attorney-advisor, business manager, and promoter
for Coast. As the district court correctly explained, the plain language of the
“Business Enterprise” exclusion bars any claims arising out of this advice,
including the claim at issue here. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.
2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000) (“Florida law provides that insurance contracts are construed
in accordance with the plain language of the policies as bargained for by the
parties.”) (citation omitted). Our reading of the exclusion is consistent with that of
other courts, see, e.g., Mt. Airy Ins. Co. v. Greenbaum, 127 F.3d 15, 19–21 (1st
Cir. 1997) (Massachusetts law), and the severability arguments advanced by Coast
and Mr. Brook are not persuasive because the exclusion is not dependent on which
attorney provided the deficient advice.

See generally Health Options, Inc v.

Kabeller, 932 So. 2d 416, 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (courts may not adopt “a
strained and unnatural construction” of insurance policy language “in order to
create an uncertainty or ambiguity”) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.

3