Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company

Eleventh Circuit

Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company

880 F.3d 1300

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2018

Docket15-12816

StatusPublished

This text of 880 F.3d 1300 (Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, 880 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case returns to us after our certification of a dispositive question of state law to the Florida Supreme Court. For background, we refer the reader to our previous opinion in this case, Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2016). In that opinion, we certified the following question:

Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a “suit” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI?

Id. at 1326 . The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative, explaining that “[although the chapter 558 process does not constitute a ‘civil proceeding,’ it is included in the policy’s definition of ‘suit’ as an ‘alternative dispute resolution proceeding' to which the insurer’s consent is required to invoke the insurer’s duty to defend the insured.” Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 232 So.3d 273 , 279, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 , at *5 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017). The Florida Supreme Court did “not address whether, in this case, C&F consented to [ACI’s] participation in the chapter 558 process because it [was] outside the scope of the certified question and an issue of fact disputed by the parties.” Id.

*1302 The Florida Supreme Court, therefore, reached a different conclusion than did the district court regarding whether chapter 558 constitutes an alternative dispute resolution proceeding (and accordingly a “suit” under the CGL policies at issue). Compare id. with Altman Contractors, 832 F.3d at 1325 (explaining district court’s holding that chapter 558 is hot an alternative dispute resolution proceeding and, therefore, not a ‘suit’ under the CGL policies). Because “state courts are the ultimate expositors of state law,” Reaves v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 717 F.3d 886 , 903 (11th Cir. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court’s déter-mination on this point is dispositive. Given' the benefit of this answer to our certified question, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of C&F, vacate the final judgment, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. We-thank the Florida. Supreme Court for accepting, and answering, the certified question.

REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This case returns to us after our certification of a dispositive question of state law to the Florida Supreme Court. For background, we refer the reader to our previous opinion in this case, Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2016). In that opinion, we certified the following question:

Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a “suit” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI?

Id. at 1326 . The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative, explaining that “[although the chapter 558 process does not constitute a ‘civil proceeding,’ it is included in the policy’s definition of ‘suit’ as an ‘alternative dispute resolution proceeding' to which the insurer’s consent is required to invoke the insurer’s duty to defend the insured.” Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 232 So.3d 273 , 279, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 , at *5 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017). The Florida Supreme Court did “not address whether, in this case, C&F consented to [ACI’s] participation in the chapter 558 process because it [was] outside the scope of the certified question and an issue of fact disputed by the parties.” Id.

*1302 The Florida Supreme Court, therefore, reached a different conclusion than did the district court regarding whether chapter 558 constitutes an alternative dispute resolution proceeding (and accordingly a “suit” under the CGL policies at issue). Compare id. with Altman Contractors, 832 F.3d at 1325 (explaining district court’s holding that chapter 558 is hot an alternative dispute resolution proceeding and, therefore, not a ‘suit’ under the CGL policies). Because “state courts are the ultimate expositors of state law,” Reaves v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 717 F.3d 886 , 903 (11th Cir. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court’s déter-mination on this point is dispositive. Given' the benefit of this answer to our certified question, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of C&F, vacate the final judgment, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. We-thank the Florida. Supreme Court for accepting, and answering, the certified question.

REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

880 F.3d 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altman-contractors-inc-v-crum-forster-specialty-insurance-company-ca11-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack