Arch Specialty Insurance Company v. Joseph Maya et al
Filing
78
ORDER granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 5/4/2015. (lh) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 14-21077-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH MAYA, d/b/a LA BODEGUITA,
And JORGE OQUENDO,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF
No. [68]. The Court is fully advised after careful review of the Motion, the parties’ briefs, the
record, and the applicable law.1
I.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action on March 24, 2014, seeking declaratory relief that the claims
asserted in another lawsuit between Defendants, arising from a physical assault, are subject to the
Assault and Battery Coverage Form of the insurance policy between Plaintiff and Defendant
Joseph Maya d/b/a La Bodeguita (“La Bodequita”). In the other lawsuit, Defendant Jorge
Oquendo sued La Bodeguita for negligent hiring and retention, vicarious liability, assault and
battery, and punitive damages after Defendant Jorge Oquendo, “without provocation, was
physically attacked by several agents and/or servants and/or employees of [La Bodeguita], who
served as security guards and/or bouncers.” ECF No. [1-2] at 5.
The insurance policy between Plaintiff and Defendant provides coverage for, among
other things, “Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability.” ECF No. [76] at 26. Referred to
1
Defendant Joseph Maya d/b/a La Bodeguita has failed to make an appearance in this case.
CASE NO. 14-21077-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
as “Coverage A,” the insurance agreement contains two sections, one titled “Insuring
Agreement,” and the other titled “Exclusions.” Under the section “Insuring Agreement,” the
policy provides that Plaintiff “will pay those sums that the Insured becomes legally obligated to
pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies. .
. . The amount we will pay for damages is limited as described in Section III – Limits of
Insurance.” Id. The policy indicates the limit of insurance for personal and advertising injury is
$1,000,000. See id. at 7.
The policy also contains a number of endorsements, one of which is titled “Assault and
Battery Coverage” (the “Endorsement”). Id. at 34. The Endorsement provides a $100,000 limit
for “all . . . damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ and medical expenses
attendant thereto, arising out of ‘assault and/or battery’ as the result of all occurrences’; and/or
damages because of all ‘personal injury’ arising out of ‘assault and/or battery’ sustained during
the policy period.” Id. The endorsement also defines “assault and/or battery” as:
1. any actual or threatened assault or battery whether caused by or at the instigation or
direction of any insured, his “employees”, patrons or any other person;
2. the failure of any insured or anyone else for whom any insured is legally responsible
to prevent or suppress assault or battery; or
3. the negligent: a. employment; b. investigation; c. supervision; d. training; or e.
retention of a person for whom any insured is or ever was legally responsible and
whose conduct is described by 1. or 2. above.
Id. at 35.
II.
Legal Standard
A party may obtain summary judgment “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 support their positions by citation to the record, including inter
2
CASE NO. 14-21077-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
alia, depositions, documents, affidavits, or declarations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is
genuine if “a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party.”
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). A fact is material if it
“might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 247-48). The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and
draws all reasonable inferences in the party’s favor. See Davis v. Williams, 451 F.3d 759, 763
(11th Cir. 2006). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s
position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for
the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Further, the Court does not weigh conflicting evidence.
See Skop v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Carlin Comm’n,
Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 802 F.2d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 1986)).
The moving party shoulders the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. Shiver v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 1342, 1343 (11th Cir. 2008). Once this burden is
satisfied, “the nonmoving party ‘must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.’” Ray v. Equifax Info. Servs., L.L.C., 327 F. App’x 819, 825 (11th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986)). Instead, “the non-moving party ‘must make a sufficient showing on each essential
element of the case for which he has the burden of proof.’” Id. (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). Accordingly, the non-moving party must produce evidence, going
beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories,
and admissions on file, designating specific facts to suggest that a reasonable jury could find in
the non-moving party’s favor. Shiver, 549 F.3d at 1343. Even “where the parties agree on the
3
CASE NO. 14-21077-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
basic facts, but disagree about the factual inferences that should be drawn from those facts,”
summary judgment may be inappropriate. Warrior Tombigbee Transp. Co., Inc. v. M/V Nan
Fung, 695 F.2d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 1983).
III.
Discussion
a. The inclusion of the policy in the record
Defendant Jorge Oquendo’s response focuses on Plaintiff’s failure to properly
authenticate the insurance policy at issue in this case in its motion for summary judgment. See
ECF No. [72] at 7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) and cases).
Defendant Jorge Oquendo
explains that “it is unknown whether Plaintiff’s declarations page is incorrect or the versions of
Plaintiff’s insurance policies supplied by Plaintiff in this case are incorrect,” id. at 8, and thus,
Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden. Because Plaintiff has since corrected this authentication
issue, see ECF No. [76], the Court declines to deny Plaintiff’s motion on this basis and proceeds
to the merits—which Defendant Jorge Oquendo’s response does not address.
b. The Assault & Battery endorsement
Subject matter jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. §
1332, and Florida law, accordingly, governs. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Steinberg, 393
F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2004). “In insurance coverage cases under Florida law, courts look at
the insurance policy as a whole and give every provision its full meaning and operative effect.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Florida law, courts examine insurance policies by
starting with “the plain language of the policy, as bargained for by the parties.” Id. (citing AutoOwners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000)). “[P]rinciples governing the
construction of insurance contracts dictate that when construing an insurance policy to determine
coverage the pertinent provisions should be read in pari materia.” U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B.,
4
CASE NO. 14-21077-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
Inc., 979 So. 2d 871, 877 (Fla. 2007). Unambiguous policy language controls, but if the
language is “susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and
the other limiting coverage, the insurance policy is considered ‘ambiguous,” and must be
‘interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the drafter who prepared the
policy.’” Id. The insurer bears the burden of proving that a provision of a policy limits
coverage. See U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So. 2d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 1983).
Florida law recognizes that the term “arising out of” is unambiguous and should be
interpreted broadly. See Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528, 539
(Fla. 2005). “The term ‘arising out of’ is broader in meaning than the term ‘caused by’ and
means ‘originating from,’ ‘having its origin in,’ ‘growing out of,’ ‘flowing from,’ ‘incident to’ or
‘having a connection with.’” Id. (citations omitted).
“This requires more than a mere
coincidence between the conduct . . . and the injury. It requires ‘some causal connection, or
relationship.’ But it does not require proximate cause.” Id. at 539-40 (citations omitted).
Here, Defendant Jorge Oquendo’s lawsuit against La Bodeguita sound in assault, battery,
and negligence, which occurred as a result of a physical attack by “security guards and/or
bouncers” of La Bodequita. See ECF No. [1-2] at 5. The claims for assault and battery clearly
fall within the purview of the policy’s Endorsement.
The negligence claims do as well. See Century Sur. Co. v. Seductions, LLC, 609 F. Supp.
2d 1273, 1277-78 (S.D. Fla. 2009). The court in Seductions was presented with cross-motions
for summary judgment in a case brought by an insurer for declaratory relief regarding an
underlying negligence action between a nightclub and a patron who was allegedly attacked and
beaten by the nightclub’s security personnel.
The insurance company sought to apply an
endorsement which limited coverage under the policy to $25,000 for any claim “arising from” an
5
CASE NO. 14-21077-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
assault and battery.
Granting summary judgment as to the applicability of the policy’s
endorsement, the court held that “in the specific context of assault and battery exclusions, other
Florida courts have addressed this issue and held that related negligence claims “arose from” the
assault and battery. Id. at 1277 (citing Perrine Food Retailers, Inc. v. Odyssey Re (London) Ltd.,
721 So. 2d 402, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Miami Beach Ent., Inc. v. First Oak Brook Corp.
Syndicate, 682 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Britamco Underwriter’s, Inc. v. Zuma
Corp., 576 So. 2d 965, 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)).
Here, as in Seductions, the policy’s Endorsement applies to the underlying negligence
claims because they arose out of an assault and battery. Cf. Colony Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 189 F.
App’x 941, 943 (11th Cir. 2006) (applying Florida law, holding that assault and battery
exclusion does not apply where negligence action against nightclub where other patrons of
nightclub fired guns in parking lot because assault and battery requires intent, and underlying
complaint did not specify whether shooter intended to threaten or hit anyone). Thus, because the
Endorsement applies to all of the claims in the underlying complaint, Defendant Jorge
Oquendo’s claims as asserted against La Bodeguita is subject to the applicable terms and
provisions of the Endorsement. A grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff is warranted.
IV.
Conclusion
For these reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [68], is GRANTED;
2. The CLERK shall CLOSE this case.
6
CASE NO. 14-21077-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
DONE AND ORDERED in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, this 4th day of May, 2015.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?