Travelers Indemnity Company v. PCR Inc.

Eleventh Circuit

Travelers Indemnity Company v. PCR Inc.

410 F.3d 677, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9519, 2005 WL 1231282

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 2005

Docket02-12829

StatusPublished

This text of 410 F.3d 677 (Travelers Indemnity Company v. PCR Inc.) 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

Travelers Indemnity Company v. PCR Inc., 410 F.3d 677, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9519, 2005 WL 1231282 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case arises out of an insurance coverage dispute controlled by Florida law. It returns to this Court after we certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (1) “Does Florida insurance law require a reading of specific intent into an insurance clause excepting from liability coverage ‘[b]odily injury intentionally caused or aggravated’ by the insured?” and (2) “Is PCR in this case entitled to liability coverage based on the language of this policy agreement, read in the light of Florida’s law of interpreting insurance policies?” Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc., 326 F.3d 1190, 1194 (11th Cir.2003). The Florida Supreme Court answered “yes” to both. Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla.2004). We now affirm the district court.

This matter began as a tort case in the Florida state court system, and the Florida Supreme Court ultimately concluded that issues of fact precluded summary judgment. Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683, 691 (Fla.2000). The parties here disputed whether the insurance policy between Travelers and PCR covered the harm alleged by the Turner plaintiffs. It does. The Florida Supreme Court said that the insurance contract at issue covers against claims “brought under Turner’s objectively-substantially-certanr standard, where the injured employee does not allege that the employer actually intended to cause injury.” Traveler’s Indem. Co., 889 So.2d at 785.

Accordingly, the district court properly — albeit for different reasons — denied

*678 Traveler’s motion for summary judgment and granted PCR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

This case arises out of an insurance coverage dispute controlled by Florida law. It returns to this Court after we certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (1) “Does Florida insurance law require a reading of specific intent into an insurance clause excepting from liability coverage ‘[b]odily injury intentionally caused or aggravated’ by the insured?” and (2) “Is PCR in this case entitled to liability coverage based on the language of this policy agreement, read in the light of Florida’s law of interpreting insurance policies?” Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc., 326 F.3d 1190, 1194 (11th Cir.2003). The Florida Supreme Court answered “yes” to both. Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So.2d 779 (Fla.2004). We now affirm the district court.

This matter began as a tort case in the Florida state court system, and the Florida Supreme Court ultimately concluded that issues of fact precluded summary judgment. Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683, 691 (Fla.2000). The parties here disputed whether the insurance policy between Travelers and PCR covered the harm alleged by the Turner plaintiffs. It does. The Florida Supreme Court said that the insurance contract at issue covers against claims “brought under Turner’s objectively-substantially-certanr standard, where the injured employee does not allege that the employer actually intended to cause injury.” Traveler’s Indem. Co., 889 So.2d at 785.

Accordingly, the district court properly — albeit for different reasons — denied

*678 Traveler’s motion for summary judgment and granted PCR’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

410 F.3d 677, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 9519, 2005 WL 1231282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travelers-indemnity-company-v-pcr-inc-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack