Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Leasing Services of America 2 Inc.
This text of Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Leasing Services of America 2 Inc. (Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Leasing Services of America 2 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.
Opinion
Case: 17-15625 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
Nos. 17-15625 & 18-10706 ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-00775-SDM-AAS
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
versus
G&S LEASING GROUP VI, INC., LEASING RESOURCES OF AMERICA 2 INC., et al.,
Defendants – Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________
(June 19, 2019)
Before JORDAN, GRANT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 17-15625 Date Filed: 06/19/2019 Page: 2 of 2
Following the district court’s interpretation of a “large-deductible
endorsement” to identically-worded workers’ compensation insurance policies, a
jury found that five companies owed Zurich American Insurance Company $9.1
million. The companies appealed.
Following a review of the relevant policy language, and with the benefit of
oral argument, we affirm. First, although the companies contend that the insurance
policies were ambiguous, and did not clearly indicate who was responsible for
payment of the disputed deductible amounts, that argument comes too late. As the
district court explained, see D.E. 224 at 5, the companies did not assert ambiguity
until they filed their post-trial motions. See Cadle v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 838
F.3d 1113, 1121 (11th Cir. 2016); Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, 681 F.2d 1015, 1030 (5th
Cir. Unit B Aug. 6, 1982) (binding under Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d
33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982)). Second, we agree with the district court that the language
in the “large-deductible endorsement”—taking into account the language in the
“specifications” document—made all of the companies (each of whom was a
“named insured”) jointly and severally responsible for the deductible amounts. See
D.E. 119 at 3-4; D.E. 224 at 5-6.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Leasing Services of America 2 Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zurich-american-insurance-co-v-leasing-services-of-america-2-inc-ca11-2019.