Colony Ins. Co. v. Total Contracting Roofing

5 Citing cases

  1. Jane Doe v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co.

    CASE NO. 16-24176-CIV-ALTONAGA/O'Sullivan (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    "Where there is no duty to defend, there is no duty to indemnify." Colony Ins. Co. v. Total Contracting & Roofing, Inc., No. 10-23091-CIV, 2011 WL 4962351, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2011) (citation omitted). If the Court finds there is no duty to defend, the second and third elements are moot.

  2. Princeton Express v. DM Ventures USA LLC

    209 F. Supp. 3d 1252 (S.D. Fla. 2016)   Cited 10 times
    Finding policies illusory where they expressly covered advertising injuries but also excluded advertising injuries

    Under Florida law, insurance coverage is illusory when policy provisions, limitations, or exclusions completely contradict the insuring provisions. Colony Ins. Co. v. Total Contracting & Roofing, Inc. , No. 10–23091–CIV, 2011 WL 4962351, at *5 (S.D.Fla. Oct. 18, 2011). See alsoFirst Mercury Ins. Co. v. Sudderth , 620 Fed.Appx. 826, 830 (11th Cir.2015) ( "Coverage in one part of an insurance policy is illusory when an exclusion in another part completely nullifies the coverage. ... Exclusions that make coverage illusory are ineffectual."); Purrelli (noting that "[w]hen limitations or exclusions completely contradict the insuring provisions, insurance coverage becomes illusory"); Tire Kingdom v. First Southern Ins. Co. , 573 So.2d 885, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("An insurance policy cannot grant rights in one paragraph and then retract the very same right in another paragraph called an ‘exclusion.’ "

  3. MapleWood Partners, L.P. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.

    295 F.R.D. 550 (S.D. Fla. 2013)   Cited 71 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that plaintiffs had waived work-product protection by putting their attorneys' assessments at issue

    Where there is no duty to defend, there is no duty to indemnify. Colony Ins. Co. v. Total Contracting & Roofing, Inc., (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2011) (insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify in light of applicability of policy exclusions from coverage). The insured's " obligation to provide notice cannot be shifted to the insurer to speculate as to the consequences that may result from specific wrongful acts by sifting through voluminous documents identified in the [underlying complaint]."

  4. First Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Milton Constr. Co.

    Case No. 12-20116-Civ-SCOLA (S.D. Fla. Jul. 16, 2012)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Following Deni Associates, courts in the Southern District of Florida have found allegations pertaining to the release of sulfur gases from defective Chinese drywall clearly within pollution exclusions virtually identical to the one in this case. For example, in Colony Insurance Co. v. Total Contracting & Roofing, Inc., 2011 WL 4962351 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2011) (Seitz, J.), the district court found an insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a contractor in Chinese drywall litigation because a pollution exclusion unambiguously applied: The Policies are clear and unambiguous and preclude coverage for liability related to hazardous materials and/or pollutants, which the Policies define as gaseous irritants or contaminants.

  5. Warwick Corp. v. Matthew Turetsky, Alliant Ins. Servs., Inc.

    227 So. 3d 621 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    While this is a significant Exclusion (especially in light of Interline's business), it does not render the policy absurd or completely contradict the insuring provisions.Id. at 967 ; see alsoColony Ins. Co. v. Total Contracting & Roofing, Inc. , No. 10-23091-CIV, 2011 WL 4962351, *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2011) (stating that for the policy in that case to be illusory it "would need to expressly cover damages from hazardous materials and simultaneously exclude damages arising from hazardous materials").In the instant case, the policy's terms do not "completely contradict" one another like the terms in Purrelli . SeePurrelli , 698 So.2d at 619. Although the limitations on triggering the excess policy are "significant," these limitations do not "render the policy absurd or completely contradict the insuring provisions."