Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Prime Ins. Syndicate v. B.J. Handley Trucking, 363 F.3d 1089, 11th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    61 views5 pages
    This document is an appeals court decision regarding whether the defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees in a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance coverage. The court determined that Alabama law applied to the insurance contract based on the lex loci contractus rule. Under Alabama law, the defendants could not recover attorneys' fees incurred in the declaratory judgment action to determine coverage. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision denying the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-24 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 363 F.3d 1089 Docket: 03-12823

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an appeals court decision regarding whether the defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees in a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance coverage. The court determined that Alabama law applied to the insurance contract based on the lex loci contractus rule. Under Alabama law, the defendants could not recover attorneys' fees incurred in the declaratory judgment action to determine coverage. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision denying the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    61 views5 pages

    Prime Ins. Syndicate v. B.J. Handley Trucking, 363 F.3d 1089, 11th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an appeals court decision regarding whether the defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees in a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance coverage. The court determined that Alabama law applied to the insurance contract based on the lex loci contractus rule. Under Alabama law, the defendants could not recover attorneys' fees incurred in the declaratory judgment action to determine coverage. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision denying the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    363 F.

    3d 1089

    PRIME INSURANCE SYNDICATE, INC., an Illinois


    corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-defendant-Appellee,
    v.
    B.J. HANDLEY TRUCKING, INC., et al., Rick Handley, d.b.a.
    Rick Handley Trucking, Randall Summerville, DefendantsCounter-claimants-Appellants.
    No. 03-12823.

    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.


    March 24, 2004.

    William Scott Patterson, Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal &


    Banker, P.A., Towson, MD, for Defendants.
    Susan Scrivani Lerner, Miami, FL, Hugh Joseph Connolly, IV, Josephs,
    Jack & Gabe, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
    Florida.
    Before WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG * ,
    Judge.
    KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:

    Appellants Rick Handley, B.J. Handley Trucking, Inc. ("Handley Trucking"),


    and Randall Summerville appeal the district court's order denying their motion
    for attorneys' fees in a declaratory action concerning coverage under an
    insurance contract. The issue on appeal is whether the district court correctly
    applied Alabama law in determining that the defendants were not entitled to
    recover their attorneys' fees.
    I. Background

    Handley Trucking, a commercial trucking business in Alabama, orally

    purchased from Prime Insurance ("Prime") a business Auto Liability Insurance


    Policy covering the period of May 17, 2000, to May 17, 2001. On May 19,
    2000, before Handley Trucking received its insurance binder, Randall
    Summerville, a Handley Trucking employee, was involved in an automobile
    accident in Miami, Florida. Summerville was within the scope of his
    employment when his vehicle struck the vehicle of Elberta Still and Emma
    Stepney. Still and Stepney were injured in the accident. On May 23, 2000,
    Prime issued the written binder confirming the oral agreement to insure
    Handley Trucking.
    3

    In November 2000, Still and Stepney filed a Florida state court action against
    Rick Handley, Handley Trucking, and Randall Summerville. Prime Insurance
    disputed coverage on the grounds that Summerville was not insured under the
    policy, the policy did not cover accidents occurring more than fifty miles from
    Leeds, Alabama, and that Handley Trucking did not give timely notice of the
    claim to Prime. Prime filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief in federal
    district court in Florida to resolve these coverage issues.

    On September 6, 2002, Prime settled the Florida state court action and moved
    to voluntarily dismiss its federal court claim for declaratory judgment. The
    district court dismissed the claim, but retained jurisdiction to consider attorneys'
    fees. The district court subsequently held that the defendants (counterclaimants-appellants) were not entitled to recover their attorneys' fees under
    Alabama law. The defendants appeal.
    II. Discussion

    Florida's choice-of-law rules control which state's attorneys' fees laws apply to
    this action. LaFarge Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 118 F.3d 1511, 1515 (11th
    Cir.1997) (citing Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82
    L.Ed. 1188 (1938)). The underlying dispute in this case was whether Handley
    Trucking's insurance contract with Prime covered the accident. Under Florida's
    choice-of-law rules, lex loci contractus 1 applies in contract matters, Fioretti v.
    Mass. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 53 F.3d 1228, 1236 (11th Cir. 1995), unless a statute
    modifies or abrogates a choice-of-law rule. Brown v. Case, 80 Fla. 703, 86 So.
    684, 685 (1920).

    The appellants contend that Fla. Stat. 627.428, 627.4135 abrogate the
    common-law lex loci contractus rule in this case. First, the appellants argue
    that Fla. Stat. 627.428 specifically provides for attorneys' fees when an
    insured successfully sues its insurer.2 Fla. Stat. 627.401(2), however, provides

    a safe harbor for insurance contracts not delivered in Florida nor issued for
    delivery in Florida.3 Because the insurance policy between Prime and Handley
    Trucking was not delivered in Florida nor issued for delivery in Florida, we
    hold that the safe harbor applies to the insurance policy.4 Thus, the appellants
    cannot recover attorneys' fees under Fla. Stat. 627.428.
    7

    The appellants claim that even if Fla. Stat. 627.428 does not cover the
    insurance policy, this insurance contract is a "contract of casualty insurance"5
    and Florida's attorneys' fees laws apply to actions regarding casualty insurance.
    See Fla. Stat. 627.4135 ("All contracts of casualty insurance covering subjects
    resident, located, or to be performed in this state shall be subject to the
    applicable provisions of this part and to the other applicable provisions of this
    code."). Again, the safe harbor provision of Fla. Stat. 627.401(2) removes this
    insurance policy from the coverage of the casualty insurance provision.
    Sheehan v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 504 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla.
    Dist.Ct.App.1987) (holding that "[t]he trial court found that since Ms. Feldman
    was located in Florida at the time of the accident, section 627.726 [currently
    section 627.4135] was controlling.... We disagree.... [S]ection 627.401(2) ...
    limits the applicability of that section to policies issued for delivery or delivered
    in the state.").

    Because this insurance policy falls within the coverage of the safe harbor
    provision of Fla. Stat. 627.401(2) and is outside the coverage of Fla. Stat.
    627.428, 627.4135, lex loci contractus governs the substantive issues of the
    contract. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. August, 530 So.2d 293, 295 (Fla.1988)
    (providing that the laws of the jurisdiction where the contract was executed
    governs interpretation of the substantive issues regarding the contract).

    The determination of where a contract was executed is fact-intensive, and


    requires a determination of "where the last act necessary to complete the
    contract [wa]s done." Pastor v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., 184 F.Supp.2d 1301,
    1305 (S.D.Fla.2002) (noting also that a contract dispute is governed by the laws
    of the state in which the contract was delivered). The last act necessary to
    complete a contract is the offeree's communication of acceptance to the offeror.
    Buell v. State, 704 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (citing legal
    encyclopedias). The district court concluded that Prime's communication of the
    oral binder to Handley Trucking constituted acceptance of Handley Trucking's
    offer to purchase insurance and, therefore, was the last act necessary to
    complete the contract. We agree.

    10

    The insured was an Alabama resident and located in Alabama at the time of the
    oral agreement. The fortuitous timing of the accident occurring before the

    written policy was actually delivered does not alter the fact that the Prime
    had already communicated acceptance of the contract to Handley Trucking.
    Therefore, the district court did not err in applying lex loci contractus to
    determine that Alabama law governed this insurance contract.
    11

    Under Alabama law, absent a contractual provision to the contrary, the insured
    may not recover its attorneys' fees from the insurer if the fees were incurred in a
    declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under a liability policy. See,
    e.g., Green v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 477 So.2d 333, 335 (Ala.1985); Clark v.
    Exchange Ins. Ass'n, 276 Ala. 334, 161 So.2d 817 (1984).

    12

    Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

    Notes:
    *

    Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge, United States Court of International


    Trade, sitting by designation

    Lex loci contractus "provides that the laws of the jurisdiction where the
    contract was executed governs interpretation of the substantive issues regarding
    the contract." Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. August, 530 So.2d 293, 295
    (Fla.1988).

    "Upon the rendition of a judgment or decree by any of the courts of this state
    against an insurer and in favor of any named or omnibus insured or the named
    beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer, the trial court or,
    in the event of an appeal in which the insured or beneficiary prevails, the
    appellate court shall adjudge or decree against the insurer and in favor of the
    insured or beneficiary a reasonable sum as fees or compensation for the
    insured's or beneficiary's attorney prosecuting the suit in which the recovery is
    had." Fla. Stat. 627.428

    "No provision of this part of this chapter applies to ... (2) Policies or contracts
    not issued for delivery in this state nor delivered in this state, except as
    otherwise provided in this code." Fla. Stat. 627.401(2)

    The defendants contend that actual physical delivery in another state is needed
    to invoke the safe harbor, and therefore, the oral agreement between Prime
    Insurance and Handley Trucking at the time of the accident does not fall within
    the safe harborCelanese Coatings Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 297
    F.Supp. 598, 600 (S.D.Fla.1969). The defendants misinterpret Celanese

    Coatings, however, which stands for the proposition that the safe harbor does
    not apply if there is actual physical delivery in Florida.
    A strict construction of the word "delivery" in this statute is actual physical
    delivery. The statute specifically contemplates a type of constructive delivery
    by using the words "issued for delivery." In this case it is clear that the policies
    sued upon were not physically delivered in Florida. The determinative question
    then becomes whether the policies can be said to have been "issued for
    delivery" in Florida.... The policies were issued in New York for delivery to the
    insured in New York or Kentucky. In no case was it intended that a policy be
    delivered in Florida.... Delivery or intended delivery is the key which opens the
    door to the recovery of attorneys' fees.... Such delivery or intended delivery is
    simply not present in this case.... The essential fact ... [is] that delivery of such a
    policy in Florida must be intended.
    Id. Thus, the safe harbor covers the insurance policy in this case because this
    policy (1) was not physically delivered in Florida and (2) was not intended for
    delivery in Florida.
    5

    See Fla. Stat. 624.605(1) (including vehicle insurance and liability insurance
    as types of casualty insurance).

    You might also like