Nautilus Insurance v. Design Build Interamerican, Inc.

564 F. App'x 496

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 2, 2014
• Docket: 12-15015
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In this declaratory judgment action, the district court entered a final judgment, finding that there was no insurance coverage under the Commercial General Liability insurance policy (“the policy”) issued by Nautilus Insurance Company (“Nautilus”) to Design Build Interamerican, Inc. (“DBI”) for injuries suffered by Alberto Zambrana (“Zambrana”) while he was performing duties related to the conduct of DBI’s business.

The insureds, DBI, Pedro Ramos, Man-ny Leon, and Sergio Ruiz, did not appeal the district court’s judgment. The tort claimants, Pilar Pena, individually, and as Plenary Guardian of Zambrana and as Guardian of Milena Zambrana, and Mile-dais Zambrana, have appealed the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Nautilus.

Review of a district court’s order granting summary judgment is de novo, with the appellate court applying the same legal standards as the district court. Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1267 n. 22 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002)).

After reviewing the record, reading the parties briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that our court’s recent decision in Evanston Insurance Company v. Design Build Interamerican, Inc., etc. et at, — Fed.Appx. - (No. 12-15466), 2014 WL 1363959 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2014), is persuasive and controls the disposition of this case. 1 Like the panel in Evanston, we conclude that the reasoning and holding of Premier Ins. Co. v. Adams, 632 So.2d 1054, 1056-57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994), governs our interpretation of the severability and exclusionary provisions of Nautilus’s policy in this case. Accordingly, based on Evanston and Premier, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Nautilus and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1 . The opinion in Evanston is unpublished and therefore not binding on this panel but may be considered as persuasive authority. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2.

2 . Our decision does not foreclose Nautilus from raising, on remand, exclusions that it contends applies to its policy.