Florida Judge Excludes Excess Insurance Carrier's Liability in Hotel Attack
The judge found an excess insurer was not liable for coverage on a claim filed after a 2017 stabbing at a Kissimmee hotel.
September 03, 2019 at 12:40 PM
4 minute read
A federal district court in Florida interpreted the term "sublimit of liability" in an excess insurance policy in a way that excluded the insurer's coverage obligations on a premises liability claim.
While Zackery Ryan Ganoe and Andrew Bickford were guests at the Days Inn of Kissimmee, they were attacked by a woman who murdered Ganoe and attempted to murder Bickford.
Bickford sought to recover damages from the operator of the Days Inn, Polynesian Inn LLC, alleging it failed to provide adequate security in the 2017 stabbing.
The claim was subject to a $25,000 limit for assault claims under an endorsement to a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to Polynesian by Northfield Insurance Co.
Polynesian also had an excess liability insurance policy from Starstone National Insurance Co., which was a "following form" policy that provided no coverage where the coverage in the followed policy (the Northfield policy) was subject to a "sublimit of liability."
Starstone went to court, contending the $25,000 limit for assault claims was a "sublimit of liability" and its policy did not provide coverage for assault claims and, more particularly, the claim arising from the assault on Bickford.
For its part, Polynesian contended the lower assault and battery limit was a standalone limit, not a sublimit, and the Starstone policy provided coverage for any assault claims exceeding the $25,000 in coverage provided by the Northfield policy.
The parties moved for summary judgment.
The district court, applying Florida law, granted summary judgment in favor of Starstone.
In its decision, the court observed the Starstone policy did not define sublimit or sublimit of liability.
The district court found the "plain and ordinary meaning" of sublimit was reflected in the International Risk Management Institute definition as: "A limitation in an insurance policy on the amount of coverage available to cover a specific type of loss. A sublimit is part of, rather than in addition to, the limit that would otherwise apply to the loss. In other words, it places a maximum on the amount available to pay that type of loss, rather than providing additional coverage for that type of loss."
Under this interpretation, the district court said the term "sub" was used in a way that was synonymous with "under," "below" or "beneath." It aligned with the way "sublimit of liability" had been used in case law — as a limit on a subcategory of liability.
The district court concluded that, as a matter of law, the Northfield policy's $25,000 in coverage for bodily injury caused by assault or battery was a sublimit of liability as that term was used in the Starstone policy and, accordingly, the Starstone policy did not cover Bickford's claim.
The case is Starstone National Insurance. v. Polynesian Inn, No: 6:18-cv-1048-Orl-31EJK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 26). Attorneys involved include: For StarStone, plaintiff: Rory Eric Jurman and Viviana Arango Loshak, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Fort Lauderdale. For Polynesian Inn, doing business as Days Inn of Kissimmee, defendant: Mark Andrew Nation, Gregory D. Swartwood, lead attorneys, Nation Law Firm, Longwood. For Andrew James Bickford, Defendant: Karina de Oliviera Rodrigues and Todd Falzone, Kelley Uustal, lead attorneys, Fort Lauderdale; Stuart Scott Busby, lead attorney, Busby Negin, Atlanta. For Polynesian Inn, counter claimant: Mark Andrew Nation, Gregory D. Swartwood, lead attorneys, Nation Law Firm, Longwood. For StarStone, counter defendant: Rory Eric Jurman and Viviana Arango Loshak, Hinshaw & Culbertson.
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Meyerowitz is the Director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. Contact him at smeyerowitz@
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Formal Charges Filed Against Judge Accused of Helping Defendant Escape ICE Detention
- 2Top 10 Predicted Business and Human Rights Issues for 2025
- 3$7.5M in Punitive Damages Awarded in Product Liability Case
- 4Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
- 5'This Is a Watershed Moment': Daniel's Law Overcomes Major Hurdle
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250