NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOSEPH GREENLEES INC LLC (2024)

Order

This cause came before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Robert Chomiczewski (“Chomiczewski”) and Peter Wabuda (“Wabuda”) (Doc. 64). The Court has also considered the Response in Opposition filed by Plaintiff Nautilus Insurance Company (“Plaintiff” or “Nautilus”) (Doc. 68).

I. Background

In this declaratory judgment action, Plaintiff asks the Court to “take jurisdiction and adjudicate the rights of the parties” under an insurance policy it issued to Defendants Joseph S Greenlees, Inc. (“Shady Oaks Lounge”) and Shady Oaks Plaza, LLC (“Shady Oaks Plaza”) (collectively, “Shady Oaks”).¹ See Docs. 1-5, 3. In its Complaint, Plaintiff states that it is defending Shady Oaks under a complete reservation of rights in two state court lawsuits. Doc. 3, ¶ 19. The state court lawsuits were filed by Chomiczewski and Wabuda in relation to injuries that they suffered when they were attacked while inside Shady Oaks Lounge. See Docs. 1-1, 1-2.

Plaintiff contends that two policy provisions restrict Shady Oaks’ rights under the insurance policy. Id. ¶¶ 24-29. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts two “counts” against Defendants and asks the Court to declare: (1) that “there is no coverage for any injuries Chomiczewski and Wabuda suffered from being stabbed under the policy's Exclusion – Weapons Endorsement” and (2) that, “to the extent Chomiczewski and Wabuda suffered any injuries other than from a weapon, the total coverage is $300,000 under the Assault or Battery Limited Liability Endorsement.” Id. at 10.

Chomiczewski and Wabuda now move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. 64. In their Motion, Chomiczewski and Wabuda ask the Court to declare: (1) that Plaintiff has a duty to defend Shady Oaks and (2) that Plaintiff's duty to indemnify Shady Oaks is not ripe. See id. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should instead adjudicate these issues on cross motions for summary judgment after the close of discovery. See Doc. 68.

II. Legal Standard

“After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1291 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is almost identical to the standard used to decide motions to dismiss. Doe v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, Palm Beach Cnty., 815 F. Supp. 1448, 1449 (S.D. Fla. 1992). Therefore, when considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006).

III. Analysis

A. Duty to Defend

First, Chomiczewski and Wabuda ask the Court to declare that Plaintiff has a duty to defend Shady Oaks against their state court lawsuits. However, this request is improper because the relief Plaintiff requests in its Complaint consists of declarations regarding whether Shady Oaks’ insurance policy provides coverage for Chomiczewski and Wabuda's injuries—not whether Plaintiff has a duty to defend Shady Oaks against Chomiczewski and Wabuda's state court lawsuits. See Doc. 3. Because Plaintiff is presently defending Shady Oaks under a reservation of rights, Chomiczewski and Wabuda's Motion will be denied with regard to this issue. See Doc. 3, ¶ 19.

B. Duty to Indemnify

Second, Chomiczewski and Wabuda ask the Court to declare that Plaintiff's duty to indemnify “is not ripe” because the state court has not yet resolved their claims against Shady Oaks. However, the Court can determine Plaintiff's obligations under Shady Oaks’ insurance policy before the state court resolves Chomiczewski and Wabuda's claims. See Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an insurance company's duty to indemnify “is determined by the underlying facts adduced at trial or developed through discovery during the litigation.” (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that “in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction ․ any court of the United States ․ may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). “The Eleventh Circuit has provided the district courts with a series of guidepost factors to aid in balancing state and federal interests while deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment case.” Northland Ins. Co. v. Top Rank Trucking of Kissimmee, Inc. 823 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1295 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005)). Among those factors are “whether the federal declaratory action would serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relations at issue” and “whether the judgment in the federal declaratory action would settle the controversy.” Roach, 411 F.3d at 1331.

An early determination of insurance policy coverage both provides a clarification of the legal relations at issue and promotes settlement of the controversy. “A prompt determination of coverage benefits the insured, the insurer and the injured party. If coverage is promptly determined, an insurance carrier is able to make an intelligent judgment on whether to settle the claim.” Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 894 So. 2d 5, 15 (Fla. 2004) (quoting Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Cent. Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So. 2d 138, 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). “The plaintiff [in the underlying suit] certainly benefits from a resolution of coverage in favor of the insured. On the other hand, if coverage does not exist, the plaintiff [in the underlying suit] may choose to cut losses by not continuing to litigate against a defendant who lacks insurance coverage.” Id.

The issue of whether Plaintiff has a duty to indemnify Shady Oaks may be developed through discovery and resolved on cross motions for summary judgment. See Stephens, 749 F.3d at 1324. Specifically, discovery is necessary to establish the cause and extent of Chomiczewski and Wabuda's injuries. Once discovery is complete, the Court may be able to determine whether the Weapons Endorsement in Shady Oaks’ insurance policy entirely precludes coverage for Chomiczewski and Wabuda's injuries (or precludes coverage for some—but not all—of their injuries). Consequently, the case is appropriate for resolution by this Court.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants Robert Chomiczewski and Peter Wabuda's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on February 14, 2024.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Plaintiff issued the insurance policy to Shady Oaks Lounge, and Shady Oaks Plaza is listed as an additional insured. Doc. 1-5 at 4, 29.

GREGORY A. PRESNELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE