[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15015
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-20772-PAS
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Arizona company,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DESIGN BUILD INTERAMERICAN, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
Defendant,
PILAR PENA,
individually and as Plenary Guardian of
Alberto Zambrana, Florida residents,
MILEDAIS ZAMBRANA,
Individually,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 2, 2014)
Before MARTIN and DUBINA, Circuit Judges and DUFFY, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In this declaratory judgment action, the district court entered a final
judgment, finding that there was no insurance coverage under the Commercial
General Liability insurance policy (“the policy”) issued by Nautilus Insurance
Company (“Nautilus”) to Design Build Interamerican, Inc. (“DBI”) for injuries
suffered by Alberto Zambrana (“Zambrana”) while he was performing duties
related to the conduct of DBI’s business.
The insureds, DBI, Pedro Ramos, Manny Leon, and Sergio Ruiz, did not
appeal the district court’s judgment. The tort claimants, Pilar Pena, individually,
and as Plenary Guardian of Zambrana and as Guardian of Milena Zambrana, and
Miledais Zambrana, have appealed the district court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of Nautilus.
Review of a district court’s order granting summary judgment is de novo,
with the appellate court applying the same legal standards as the district court.
Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1267 n. 22 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Skrtich v.
Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002)).
*
Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy, United States District Judge for the District of South
Carolina, sitting by designation.
2
After reviewing the record, reading the parties briefs, and having the benefit
of oral argument, we conclude that our court’s recent decision in Evanston
Insurance Company v. Design Build Interamerican, Inc., etc. et al., __ F. App’x
___, (No. 12-15466) (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2014), is persuasive and controls the
disposition of this case. 2 Like the panel in Evanston, we conclude that the
reasoning and holding of Premier Ins. Co. v. Adams, 632 So. 2d 1054, 1056–57
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994), governs our interpretation of the severability and
exclusionary provisions of Nautilus’s policy in this case. Accordingly, based on
Evanston and Premier, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of Nautilus and remand this case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. 3
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
2
The opinion in Evanston is unpublished and therefore not binding on this panel but may
be considered as persuasive authority. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2.
3
Our decision does not foreclose Nautilus from raising, on remand, exclusions that it
contends applies to its policy.
3