Markel International Insurance Company, LTD. v. Florida West Covered RV & Boat Storage, LLC , 437 F. App'x 803 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-11511 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar AUGUST 11, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-02427-JDW-TGW
MARKEL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FLORIDA WEST COVERED RV & BOAT STORAGE, LLC,
NORMAN WEIZER,
DIANE WEIZER,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants,
JULIUS J. SZABO,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 11, 2011)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This action for declaratory relief is derivative of a state court action brought
by Julius J. Szabo against Norman and Diane Weizer as the owners and operators
of Florida West Covered RV & Boat Storage, LLC. Szabo sued Florida West and
the Weizers (collectively, “Florida West”) in a separate state court action.
According to his complaint, Szabo was forced to wade through retained flood
water to retrieve his personal property from a storage unit that he leased from
Florida West. Szabo alleged that he “contract[ed] bacterial poisoning,” “a severe
bacterial infection,” and “injury” due to “milling[s] from roadwork” which had
mixed with the flood water. In response to Szabo’s complaint, Florida West
sought protection under its standard commercial general liability insurance policy
(“CGL”) with Markel International Insurance Company.
The issue in this coverage dispute is whether the state court complaint
alleges facts that fall within the ambit of two policy exclusions contained in the
parties’ CGL policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Markel, finding that Markel was neither bound to indemnify Florida West, nor
obligated to defend it under the CGL policy because the absolute pollution
2
exclusion and absorption/inhalation/disease exclusion both applied to defeat
coverage. Florida West now appeals.
Our review is de novo. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Tropical Shipping &
Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 987, 1003 (11th Cir. 2001) (“The question of the extent of
coverage under an insurance policy is a question of law . . . and is therefore
subject to plenary review by this Court.”); Huff v. DeKalb Cnty., Ga., 516 F.3d
1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2008) (“This Court reviews de novo a district court’s grant
or denial of summary judgment.”). “Because federal jurisdiction over this matter
is based on diversity, Florida law governs the determination of the issues on this
appeal.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Steinberg, 393 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir.
2004). Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material
fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a).
Under Florida law, an insurer’s duty to defend is determined solely from the
allegations in the complaint. See Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 894 So.
2d 5, 9–10 (Fla. 2004). An insurer is under no duty to defend if the allegations in
the complaint implicate a policy exclusion. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tippett,
864 So. 2d 31, 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
3
Florida West argues that the district court erroneously applied Deni
Associates of Florida, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 711 So.
2d 1135 (Fla. 1998). Specifically, Florida West contends that the district court
improperly relied on the dictionary definitions of “irritant” and “contaminant”
without considering whether millings are irritants or contaminants under
environmental regulations and case law from other jurisdictions. Compare id. at
1141 (looking to Webster’s Dictionary, the Federal Clean Air Act, and other
jurisdictions in finding that ammonia fumes constituted a pollutant) with id. at
1138 (rejecting argument that the court ignore the policy definition of “pollutants”
or “limit the term so that it is defined in the manner employed by environmental
engineers”). Florida West also argues that the court erred in even considering
whether millings constituted a pollutant because the underlying complaint alleged
that bacteria caused the infection.
We disagree. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court
recognized that the allegations in the complaint control, and confined its analysis
to those facts. See Tippett, 864 So. 2d at 33. For instance, Szabo alleged that
“[t]he water retention and flooding mixed with millings . . . caused [him] to
contract bacterial poisoning and injury.” We are not persuaded by Florida West’s
4
contention that Szabo alleged that the bacteria, rather than the millings, caused the
infection.
We agree with the district court that, pursuant to a reasonable reading of the
complaint, millings mixed with flood water constituted a “pollutant” within the
meaning of the absolute pollution exclusion. The court correctly looked to the
dictionary definitions of “contaminant” and “irritant” in construing the exclusion,
and the court properly noted that, according to Szabo’s complaint, the presence of
millings in the water is precisely what caused his injuries. Importantly, the district
court noted that it is a product’s “ability to produce an irritating effect [that] places
the product[] within the policies’ definition of an ‘irritant.’” Technical Coating
Applicators, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 157 F.3d 843, 845 (11th Cir. 1998)
(citing Deni, 711 So. 2d at 1139). “Consequently, a product that causes no harm
when used properly still may be classified as a pollutant under the exclusion: ‘It
can obviously cause harm when it is not used properly.’” Id. (citing Deni, 711 So.
2d at 1141). It is of no moment that the complaint does not actually use the words
“irritant,” “contaminant,” “pollutant,” or “pollution,” as Florida West suggests.
See Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Marine Distribs., Inc., 771 So. 2d 579, 582
(Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (explaining how coverage does not depend on artful pleading
or the inclusion of certain “buzz words”).
5
According to Szabo’s complaint, he contracted bacterial poisoning and
infection from millings, which Florida West allowed to mix with flood water. We
agree with the district court that “[w]hile millings may not inflict injury under
normal circumstances, millings are alleged to have produced bacterial poisoning
and infection, which certainly are ‘irritating effects.’” Thus, under the facts
alleged in Szabo’s complaint, the millings constituted a pollutant. Accordingly,
we affirm.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Because we affirm the application of the pollution exclusion, we need not address
Florida West’s arguments regarding the applicability of the absorbtion/inhalation/disease
exclusion.
6