Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co.

12 Citing cases

  1. RLI Ins. Co. v. Outsidein Architecture, LLC

    692 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (M.D. Fla. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    In a contract action, a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the substantive law of the forum state. See Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 F. App'x 844, 848 (11th Cir. 2013). Usually, "an insurance company's duty to defend an insured is determined solely from the allegations in the complaint against the insured, not by the true facts of the cause of action against the insured, the insured's version of the facts or the insured's defenses."

  2. The Gardens of Forest Lakes Condo. Ass'n v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co.

    8:23-cv-2499-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2024)

    In a contract action, a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the substantive law of the forum state. See Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 Fed.Appx. 844, 848 (11th Cir. 2013). Here, the parties dispute whether the underlying lawsuits “arise directly or indirectly from.. .damage to or destruction of any tangible property, including the loss of its use[.]”

  3. Posada v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co.

    8:22-cv-1578-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    In a contract action, a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies the substantive law of the forum state. See Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 Fed.Appx. 844, 848 (11th Cir. 2013). B. Discussion

  4. PNI Litig. Tr. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A.

    21-21416-Civ-GAYLES/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2023)

    policies' plain language, and is inconsistent with the standard applied by courts under Florida law when determining relatedness in the insurance coverage context. See, e.g., Gidney v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 140 So.3d 609, 615 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (finding relatedness where “the Revitz claim and the [subsequent] class claim [were] based on the same course of conduct by [the company], particularly its alleged failure to conduct due diligence, maintain proper accounting, and detect and report prior encumbrances on the properties which provided collateral for the loans.”); Health First, Inc. v. Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp., 747 Fed.Appx. 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that different parties and different chronologies did not negate relatedness between the lawsuits where “all the underlying complaints described” a “continuing pattern or practice of behavior.”); Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 Fed.Appx. 844, 849 (11th Cir. 2013) (rejecting claim that the addition of new defendants yielded a “new Wrongful Act”, and finding relatedness where lawsuits claimed wrongful acts “related to [the company's] alleged efforts to falsely imply that [former partner] endorsed or was associated with its psychic services”)

  5. First Watch Rests., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

    519 F. Supp. 3d 1056 (M.D. Fla. 2021)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding insured's "business losses due to COVID-19 orders [we]re economic losses, not the kind of physical loss or damage contemplated by the policy"

    Here, "considering the plain language of the [policy] ... the underlying litigation is unequivocally excluded from coverage." Zodiac Group, Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 F. App'x 844 (11th Cir. 2013). Therefore, First Watch's claims are properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

  6. Rococo Steak, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co.

    515 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (M.D. Fla. 2021)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that "[c]ourts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" and dismissing with prejudice complaint alleging that COVID-19 damaged property, denied access to property, prevented customers from accessing property, rendered property physically uninhabitable, impaired property's function, and caused a suspension of business operations at property

    Here, "considering the plain language of the [policy] ... the underlying litigation is unequivocally excluded from coverage," therefore Rococo's claims are properly dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Zodiac Group, Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 F. App'x 844 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that district court properly granted insurer's motion to dismiss breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims because plain language of the policy precluded coverage for the underlying claim). It appears to the Court that any amendment would be futile based on the facts and circumstances of this case.

  7. SFR Servs. v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.

    Case No: 2:19-cv-369-FtM-99NPM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2021)

    The Court begins, as it must, with the language of the Policy. See Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 F. App'x 844, 849-50 (11th Cir. 2013). Empire agreed with the insured to provide insurance as stated in the Policy.

  8. Butterfield v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.

    Case No. 3:19-cv-1443-J-32JRK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2020)

    Nor is this a circumstance where a plaintiff's claims are clearly barred by the plain language of an insurance policy. Cf. Goldberg v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 143 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1295 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (dismissing complaint for coverage of underlying complaint for bankers' roles in a Ponzi scheme where policy clearly and plainly excluded professional services claims); Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 F. App'x 844, 848 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal where policy excluded coverage for claims against insured that predated policy period). By contrast, this case is about whether a policy even existed.

  9. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Seneca Specialty Ins. Co.

    Case Number: 20-20442-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla. Jun. 18, 2020)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Amerisure, this court reviewed policy language that provided coverage for additional insureds “with respect to liability... caused, in whole or in part by” the primary insured's “acts or omissions.

    At this stage, the Court is generally confined to considering the Complaint and any of its attachments. See Zodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., 542 F. App'x 844, 848 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2010)). Because the Seneca Policy and the subcontract between MRK and Case were filed by Amerisure as attachments to its Complaint (see D.E. 4; D.E. 4-2 at 10-44; D.E 4-5), the Court may consider the language of these documents in deciding whether Seneca has a duty to defend.

  10. Bencomo Enters. v. United Specialty Ins. Co.

    345 F. Supp. 3d 1401 (S.D. Fla. 2018)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing declaratory relief claim where plaintiff asked the court to declare that it was "entitled to the coverage and the rights afforded under the Policy, and that Defendant has an obligation to provide coverage for the Claim" and that "Defendant shall specifically perform under the Policy, and acknowledge coverage under the Policy for the Claim," and asked the court to "[e]nforce the terms, conditions, rights or obligations under the Policy"

    Therefore, even if an independent claim to confirm an appraisal award existed in Florida, Plaintiff's claim –– construed as a request to confirm the appraisal award in full before any coverage or causation determination by the Court –– is foreclosed by the Policy's plain language. SeeZodiac Grp., Inc. v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co. , 542 F. App'x 844, 848 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court's order granting motion to dismiss "because [of] the plain language of the Policy ...." (alterations added); see also id. ("If the language used in an insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court must interpret the policy in accordance with the plain meaning of the language ...." (quoting Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Virtual Imaging Servs., Inc. , 141 So.3d 147, 157 (Fla. 2013) ; alteration added) ).