Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 17-11823 ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-14043-RLR
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,
versus
JAN MARIE WALKER, CHARLES FRED WALKER, CHERYL WALKER,
Defendants - Counter Claimants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 14, 2018)
Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, ∗ District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
∗ Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 2 of 7
This appeal stems from State Farm’s refusal to provide uninsured motorist
coverage to the appellants, Charles and Cheryl Walker, following an accident in
Florida involving their son, Kevin Walker. The Walkers contend that the umbrella
policy, under which they made the claim, was delivered or issued for delivery in
Florida. On the other hand, State Farm contends that the policy does not extend to
Florida exposures since the policy was purchased, delivered, and serviced in North
Carolina. The district court agreed with State Farm and dismissed the case. The
Walkers appealed, again claiming that Florida law controls the policy as it was also
delivered or issued for delivery in Florida. After a careful review of the record and
the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no error and
affirm.
I.
The Walkers purchased a personal liability umbrella policy in July 2001,
which was subsequently delivered and continuously serviced in North Carolina—
their residence at the time they purchased the policy. The umbrella policy is one of
excess liability insurance, meaning that it provides additional coverage for
unspecified exposures on top of coverage that is already provided from various
other primary policies. The policy contained North Carolina terms and provided
$1 million in personal liability coverage based on various underlying exposures
including cars and real estate.
2 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 3 of 7
Due to the frequent purchase and sale of their cars and real estate, the
Walkers’ exposures fluctuated greatly from the time that they purchased the
umbrella policy in 2001. At any given point the Walkers owned rental and
residential properties, as well as vehicles in North Carolina. In 2010, they sold one
of their North Carolina properties and purchased their first Florida property, a
small condominium unit. Soon after, the Walkers began to spend at least three
months out of the year in Florida, while still primarily residing in North Carolina.
A year later in 2011, the Walkers purchased another Florida property in Stuart,
Florida, where they began to spend two-thirds of the year. They also relocated a
car to use while in Florida. Mrs. Walker informed their North Carolina agent
about the purchase of the new Florida residence and requested an auto policy to
cover the newly relocated car. Mrs. Walker also directed that the umbrella policy
remain in North Carolina—where the Walkers still owned multiple properties and
a vehicle. When the North Carolina agent advised Mrs. Walker that she could not
issue a Florida auto policy, Mrs. Walker contacted a Florida agent from whom they
acquired the appropriate policy.
About two years later in 2013, the Walkers sold their North Carolina
residence, but kept at least one other property and a car there. They then called
their North Carolina agent to cancel the associated homeowner’s policy and to
change their mailing address to their Stuart, Florida residence—where they would
3 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 4 of 7
be spending the winter. It was at this time that State Farm acknowledged that the
Walkers had dual residency in both Florida and North Carolina. By 2014, the
Walkers had purchased another residence in North Carolina, but relocated all three
of their cars to Florida. They also renewed their umbrella policy—a process that
they had done annually, each July, since 2001. On November 6, 2015, their son,
Kevin Walker, suffered injuries when, while riding a bicycle on a Florida highway,
he was struck by a trailer that dislodged from a passing vehicle. The Walkers
made a claim for uninsured motorist coverage under the umbrella policy (which
had just been renewed in July), but State Farm refused to pay.
State Farm sought a declaratory judgment stating that the umbrella policy
did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for the Walkers’ son’s accident. It
argued that under the applicable Florida choice of law principles, the umbrella
policy should be interpreted under North Carolina law, where the policy was
executed. The Walkers disagreed, arguing that the policy is not governed by North
Carolina substantive law and is instead subject to Florida substantive law. On
cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court sided with State Farm, and
the Walkers timely appealed.
II.
On appeal, there is no issue of material fact in dispute. Rather, the sole issue
in this case is the district court’s alleged misapplication of the law to the
4 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 5 of 7
undisputed facts. Thus, we review de novo the district court’s decision to grant
summary judgment, applying the same standard as the district court. Bailey v.
Allgas, Inc., 284 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002).
III.
The Walkers argue that although the excess policy was originally issued in
North Carolina, the policy was also “delivered or issued for delivery” in Florida,
triggering the application of Florida substantive law.1 We disagree.
As an initial matter, neither party disputes that Florida choice of law
principles apply. Consequently, this case is a straightforward application of lex
loci contractus—a Florida choice of law principle that applies to insurance
policies. It states that a policy will generally be governed by the law of the state in
which it was executed. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roach, 945 So. 2d 1160,
1163 (Fla. 2006). Roach is directly on point: absent an insured establishing the
narrow public policy exception,2 an insurance policy is generally enforced under
the law of the state where it was executed. Id. at 1163, 1165, 1167.
1 The Walkers contend that State Farm failed to comply with Fla. Stat. § 627.727(2), which addresses the extent to which insurers offering policies of excess liability insurance are obligated to comply with the requirements of Florida law concerning uninsured motorist coverage. Of course, if the policy is governed by North Carolina law, this argument is irrelevant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 17-11823 ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-14043-RLR
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,
versus
JAN MARIE WALKER, CHARLES FRED WALKER, CHERYL WALKER,
Defendants - Counter Claimants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________
(September 14, 2018)
Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and WRIGHT, ∗ District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
∗ Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 2 of 7
This appeal stems from State Farm’s refusal to provide uninsured motorist
coverage to the appellants, Charles and Cheryl Walker, following an accident in
Florida involving their son, Kevin Walker. The Walkers contend that the umbrella
policy, under which they made the claim, was delivered or issued for delivery in
Florida. On the other hand, State Farm contends that the policy does not extend to
Florida exposures since the policy was purchased, delivered, and serviced in North
Carolina. The district court agreed with State Farm and dismissed the case. The
Walkers appealed, again claiming that Florida law controls the policy as it was also
delivered or issued for delivery in Florida. After a careful review of the record and
the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no error and
affirm.
I.
The Walkers purchased a personal liability umbrella policy in July 2001,
which was subsequently delivered and continuously serviced in North Carolina—
their residence at the time they purchased the policy. The umbrella policy is one of
excess liability insurance, meaning that it provides additional coverage for
unspecified exposures on top of coverage that is already provided from various
other primary policies. The policy contained North Carolina terms and provided
$1 million in personal liability coverage based on various underlying exposures
including cars and real estate.
2 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 3 of 7
Due to the frequent purchase and sale of their cars and real estate, the
Walkers’ exposures fluctuated greatly from the time that they purchased the
umbrella policy in 2001. At any given point the Walkers owned rental and
residential properties, as well as vehicles in North Carolina. In 2010, they sold one
of their North Carolina properties and purchased their first Florida property, a
small condominium unit. Soon after, the Walkers began to spend at least three
months out of the year in Florida, while still primarily residing in North Carolina.
A year later in 2011, the Walkers purchased another Florida property in Stuart,
Florida, where they began to spend two-thirds of the year. They also relocated a
car to use while in Florida. Mrs. Walker informed their North Carolina agent
about the purchase of the new Florida residence and requested an auto policy to
cover the newly relocated car. Mrs. Walker also directed that the umbrella policy
remain in North Carolina—where the Walkers still owned multiple properties and
a vehicle. When the North Carolina agent advised Mrs. Walker that she could not
issue a Florida auto policy, Mrs. Walker contacted a Florida agent from whom they
acquired the appropriate policy.
About two years later in 2013, the Walkers sold their North Carolina
residence, but kept at least one other property and a car there. They then called
their North Carolina agent to cancel the associated homeowner’s policy and to
change their mailing address to their Stuart, Florida residence—where they would
3 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 4 of 7
be spending the winter. It was at this time that State Farm acknowledged that the
Walkers had dual residency in both Florida and North Carolina. By 2014, the
Walkers had purchased another residence in North Carolina, but relocated all three
of their cars to Florida. They also renewed their umbrella policy—a process that
they had done annually, each July, since 2001. On November 6, 2015, their son,
Kevin Walker, suffered injuries when, while riding a bicycle on a Florida highway,
he was struck by a trailer that dislodged from a passing vehicle. The Walkers
made a claim for uninsured motorist coverage under the umbrella policy (which
had just been renewed in July), but State Farm refused to pay.
State Farm sought a declaratory judgment stating that the umbrella policy
did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for the Walkers’ son’s accident. It
argued that under the applicable Florida choice of law principles, the umbrella
policy should be interpreted under North Carolina law, where the policy was
executed. The Walkers disagreed, arguing that the policy is not governed by North
Carolina substantive law and is instead subject to Florida substantive law. On
cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court sided with State Farm, and
the Walkers timely appealed.
II.
On appeal, there is no issue of material fact in dispute. Rather, the sole issue
in this case is the district court’s alleged misapplication of the law to the
4 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 5 of 7
undisputed facts. Thus, we review de novo the district court’s decision to grant
summary judgment, applying the same standard as the district court. Bailey v.
Allgas, Inc., 284 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002).
III.
The Walkers argue that although the excess policy was originally issued in
North Carolina, the policy was also “delivered or issued for delivery” in Florida,
triggering the application of Florida substantive law.1 We disagree.
As an initial matter, neither party disputes that Florida choice of law
principles apply. Consequently, this case is a straightforward application of lex
loci contractus—a Florida choice of law principle that applies to insurance
policies. It states that a policy will generally be governed by the law of the state in
which it was executed. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roach, 945 So. 2d 1160,
1163 (Fla. 2006). Roach is directly on point: absent an insured establishing the
narrow public policy exception,2 an insurance policy is generally enforced under
the law of the state where it was executed. Id. at 1163, 1165, 1167.
1 The Walkers contend that State Farm failed to comply with Fla. Stat. § 627.727(2), which addresses the extent to which insurers offering policies of excess liability insurance are obligated to comply with the requirements of Florida law concerning uninsured motorist coverage. Of course, if the policy is governed by North Carolina law, this argument is irrelevant. 2 The public policy exception allows the policy to be governed by Florida law if the insureds can establish: (1) that they are Florida citizens in need of protection; (2) that the insurer has reasonable notice that the insureds are Florida citizens; and (3) that a paramount public policy interest exists. Roach, 945 So. 2d at 1165, 1167. The Walkers, however, admit that they are not arguing that this exception applies. 5 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 6 of 7
Here, the umbrella policy was executed in 2001 in North Carolina and the
Walkers renewed it (each time bearing the same policy number, the same
coverage, and the same insureds) annually up until the November 2015 accident.
As such, the umbrella policy is governed by North Carolina law—the state where it
was executed. See id. at 1163.
While both parties agree that the policy was executed in North Carolina, the
Walkers contend that the policy was subsequently executed or issued and delivered
in Florida, relying upon Strochak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 717 So. 2d 453, 453–54 (Fla.
1998). But that reliance is misplaced. Indeed, Strochak itself is an application of
lex loci contracus. See Roach, 945 So. 2d at 1167 (“Strochak involved . . . a
straight forward application of the lex loci rule.”). The relevant factor in Strochak
is that a new policy was executed or issued and delivered in Florida, as was
evidenced by: the new policy number, the new insureds, the new coverage, and the
Florida language. Id. at 1166–67. It was this new policy that triggered the
application of Florida substantive law. Id.
But Strochak stands in contrast to the situation here. No such new policy
was executed or issued to the Walkers. Instead, this case involves the same North
Carolina policy that was first executed by the Walkers in 2001. It follows then that
the policy must be governed where it was executed—North Carolina. See id. at
1163–67.
6 Case: 17-11823 Date Filed: 09/14/2018 Page: 7 of 7
IV.
Accordingly, we find no error. The district court correctly applied the law to
the undisputed facts. The policy was not delivered or issued for delivery in Florida
and as a result it is governed by North Carolina law, because under the applicable
law, lex loci contractus, we apply the law of the state in which the policy was
executed.
AFFIRMED.