United States Eleventh Circuit

In a diversity insurance coverage dispute governed by Alabama law, summary judgment for defendant, finding that a no-action clause in the policy bars coverage, is reversed as: 1) the no-action clause, the legally-obligated-to-pay condition, and the cross-suit exclusion do not preclude defendant's insurance obligation; 2) defendant's policy covers to the extent of the insured's obligation pursuant to its agreement to indemnify the party that contracted with the insured for a labor supply; and 3) defendant's argument that the indemnity agreement was not triggered since the accident did not arise out of the insured's work is rejected.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/16/2007
• Published 03/16/2007

Judges

• ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:, Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, District Judge.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• William W. Watts, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Jon M. Hughes, James A. Kee, Jr., Kee & Selby, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.