Travelers Property Casualty Co v. Amerisure Insurance Company

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Amerisure Insurance Company. 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: 16-11227

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11227
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:14-cv-00010-RH-CJK
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Counter
Defendant - Appellee,
versus
AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Counter
Claimant - Appellant,
CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(January 17, 2017)

Case: 16-11227

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Before MARCUS, DUBINA, and WALKER, ∗ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of Travelers Property
Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), in Travelers’s breach-of-contract
action against Amerisure. The central issue in the case is whether Amerisure was
obligated to defend a general contractor as an additional insured under a
subcontractor’s liability policy. The case arose out of a condominium construction
project for which W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (“Yates”) was the
general contractor and Jemco Plastering, Inc. (“Jemco”) was a subcontractor.
Yates was insured by Travelers, and Jemco was insured by Amerisure. After
construction was completed, the condominium’s unit-owners association sued
Yates for breach of contract, code violations, and negligence, and Yates asserted
third-party claims against Jemco and other implicated subcontractors. Amerisure
denied Yates’s demand for coverage, and Travelers filed this action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida alleging that Amerisure
had a duty to defend Yates as an additional insured under Jemco’s policy.
On appeal, Amerisure argues that the district court erred in ruling: (1) that
Amerisure wrongfully refused to defend Yates in the state court action, and
∗

Honorable John Walker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting
by designation.
2

Case: 16-11227

Date Filed: 01/17/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Travelers was entitled to recover the attorney’s fees and costs it incurred in
defending Yates in the face of Amerisure’s refusal to defend; and (2) that Yates’
pursuit of third-party claims was a reasonable part of its strategy for defending the
claims and, because Amerisure breached its duty to defend, Amerisure was not
permitted to second guess that strategy. After thorough review and having taken
oral argument, we affirm the entry of summary judgment for the reasons outlined
in the district court’s well-reasoned September 30, 2015 order.
AFFIRMED.

3