A federal judge denied a Naples country club's motion for reconsideration in a dispute over its claim for damages to its golf course from Hurricane Irma.

After the country club was damaged in the 2017 storm, Grey Oaks Country Club Inc. submitted a claim to its insurer, Zurich American Insurance Co.

Grey Oaks subsequently sued Zurich, alleging the insurer breached its coverage obligations under the commercial insurance policy by failing to compensate Grey Oaks for the full amount of its damage and loss resulting from the hurricane.

Both parties moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to favor their interpretation of the limits of coverage for "golf course outdoor grounds" available under the policy, which turned on the determination of what the word "premises" meant under the endorsement.

Grey Oaks argued the policy contained a "schedule of locations" that specifically listed 19 locations, thereby producing up to $9.5 million of available coverage for the club's outdoor damage due to Hurricane Irma.

For its part, Zurich asserted there was only one "premises."

U.S. District Judge John Steele in Fort Myers ruled the definition of premises in the policy was unambiguous and there were two premises for coverage purposes: 2400 Grey Oaks Drive North and 1600 Estuary Drive.

The court then denied Grey Oaks' motion and granted Zurich's motion to the extent that it limited the premises to the two addresses subject to the policy's $500,000 per premises liability limit.

Grey Oaks moved for reconsideration, contending the court committed clear error under Florida law that needed to be corrected to prevent manifest injustice.

In support of that argument, Grey Oaks argued that, after rejecting Zurich's interpretation of the policy as unreasonable, the court should have deemed the policy ambiguous and construed it in Grey Oaks' favor.

Second, it contended the court erred when it refused to give any meaning to the schedule of locations in the property coverage section even though the policy's plain language made clear the schedule applied to the entire policy.

Third, it asserted the court improperly declined to apply the schedule of locations because Grey Oaks did not cite any legal authority for the proposition that a policy's "common policy forms and endorsements" must be applied to all coverage sections.

The court denied Grey Oaks' motion. The court first explained it decided the policy was unambiguous.

The court also rejected Grey Oaks' arguments that the court erred in its conclusion that the schedule of locations had to be specifically referenced within the commercial property coverage part to be applicable as the schedule was the only part of the policy where there were any locations scheduled as referenced in the definition of premises, and in its refusal to interpret the schedule within the property coverage because Grey Oaks had not cited any authority for the proposition that the common policy forms and endorsements applied to all of the coverage sections.

According to the court, Grey Oaks merely reiterated its arguments and interpretation of the policy language that the court had already considered in its prior opinion, and it denied the motion for reconsideration.

The court concluded by rejecting Grey Oaks' request to certify two questions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Whether a schedule of locations, which is incorporated as a common form and endorsement in a policy with multiple coverages, must be given meaning and effect to determine the number of insured premises for a coverage subsection that does not specifically provide a schedule of premises or locations, and when a dispute arises between a policyholder and an insurer regarding the meaning of a policy provision and the court rejects an interpretation as unreasonable, may a court forego the broader interpretation offered by the policyholder in favor of its own narrower interpretation.

The court found the issues failed to satisfy the standard for certifying questions to the circuit court.

The case is Grey Oaks Country Club v. Zurich American Insurance, No: 2:18-cv-639 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23). Attorneys involved include: For Grey Oaks, plaintiff: Cary Steklof, Michael Mueller and Walter Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Miami; For Zurich, defendant: Ira S. Bergman and Jason M. Chodos, Litchfield Cavo, Fort Lauderdale.

Read the order:

See other hurricane insurance decisions:

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@meyerowitzcommunications.com.