Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mallard

Eleventh Circuit

Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mallard

402 F.3d 1085, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3937, 2005 WL 545795

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 2005

Docket02-10786

StatusPublished

This text of 402 F.3d 1085 (Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mallard) 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

Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mallard, 402 F.3d 1085, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3937, 2005 WL 545795 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mallard, 309 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.2002), Employers Mutual Casualty Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court seeking a declaration that the insurance policy it issued to the City of Attalla, Alabama, did not provide coverage for the actions of Officers Fletcher Mallard and Barnie Gilliland, who sexually assaulted Janice Shrader and Debra Lynn Minnix Livingston while the women were in custody. The district court concluded that the police officers’ conduct was outside the scope of their duties and, therefore, their conduct was not covered by the policy. Shrader and Livingston appealed.

We certified the following question to the Alabama Supreme Court:

DOES AN INSURANCE POLICY PROVISION LIMITING AN “INSURED” TO AN EMPLOYEE ACTING “WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DUTIES” WHILE CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER CONFLICT WITH A SEPARATE PROVISION IN THE SAME INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR “VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL/CIVIL RIGHTS” SO AS TO CREATE AN AMBIGUITY THAT MUST BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER?

Id. at 1311.

The Alabama Supreme Court, after a thorough review of our certified question, provided the following answer:

[W]e hold that a policy provision defining an “insured” as an employee acting “within the scope of duties” while conducting the business of the employer does not conflict with a separate provision in the same insurance policy providing coverage for “violations of constitutional/civil rights” so as to create an ambiguity that must be construed against the insurer.

Shrader v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., — So.2d -, -, 2005 WL 435122, at *8 (Ala. Feb. 25, 2005).

Given the Alabama Supreme Court’s resolution of this issue, the district court correctly concluded that there was no ambiguity in Employers Mutual Casualty *1087 Company’s insurance policy. Consequently, the district court also correctly concluded that the actions of Officers Fletcher Mallard and Barnie Gilliland were not covered by that insurance policy.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Employers Mutual Casualty Company in this case.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mallard, 309 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.2002), Employers Mutual Casualty Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court seeking a declaration that the insurance policy it issued to the City of Attalla, Alabama, did not provide coverage for the actions of Officers Fletcher Mallard and Barnie Gilliland, who sexually assaulted Janice Shrader and Debra Lynn Minnix Livingston while the women were in custody. The district court concluded that the police officers’ conduct was outside the scope of their duties and, therefore, their conduct was not covered by the policy. Shrader and Livingston appealed.

We certified the following question to the Alabama Supreme Court:

DOES AN INSURANCE POLICY PROVISION LIMITING AN “INSURED” TO AN EMPLOYEE ACTING “WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DUTIES” WHILE CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER CONFLICT WITH A SEPARATE PROVISION IN THE SAME INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR “VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL/CIVIL RIGHTS” SO AS TO CREATE AN AMBIGUITY THAT MUST BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER?

Id. at 1311.

The Alabama Supreme Court, after a thorough review of our certified question, provided the following answer:

[W]e hold that a policy provision defining an “insured” as an employee acting “within the scope of duties” while conducting the business of the employer does not conflict with a separate provision in the same insurance policy providing coverage for “violations of constitutional/civil rights” so as to create an ambiguity that must be construed against the insurer.

Shrader v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., — So.2d -, -, 2005 WL 435122, at *8 (Ala. Feb. 25, 2005).

Given the Alabama Supreme Court’s resolution of this issue, the district court correctly concluded that there was no ambiguity in Employers Mutual Casualty *1087 Company’s insurance policy. Consequently, the district court also correctly concluded that the actions of Officers Fletcher Mallard and Barnie Gilliland were not covered by that insurance policy.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Employers Mutual Casualty Company in this case.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F.3d 1085, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3937, 2005 WL 545795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/employers-mutual-casualty-co-v-mallard-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack