Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee, v. AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant, CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”), in Travelers's breach-of-contract action against Amerisure. The central issue in the case is whether Amerisure was obligated to defend a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor's liability policy. The case arose out of a condominium construction project for which W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (“Yates”) was the general contractor and Jemco Plastering, Inc. (“Jemco”) was a subcontractor. Yates was insured by Travelers, and Jemco was insured by Amerisure. After construction was completed, the condominium's unit-owners association sued Yates for breach of contract, code violations, and negligence, and Yates asserted third-party claims against Jemco and other implicated subcontractors. Amerisure denied Yates's demand for coverage, and Travelers filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida alleging that Amerisure had a duty to defend Yates as an additional insured under Jemco's policy.
On appeal, Amerisure argues that the district court erred in ruling: (1) that Amerisure wrongfully refused to defend Yates in the state court action, and Travelers was entitled to recover the attorney's fees and costs it incurred in defending Yates in the face of Amerisure's refusal to defend; and (2) that Yates' pursuit of third-party claims was a reasonable part of its strategy for defending the claims and, because Amerisure breached its duty to defend, Amerisure was not permitted to second guess that strategy. After thorough review and having taken oral argument, we affirm the entry of summary judgment for the reasons outlined in the district court's well-reasoned September 30, 2015 order.
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-11227
Decided: January 17, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)