[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-15214 JANUARY 12, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
ACTING CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-22617-CV-FAM
MASTEC, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
d.b.a. C & S Directional Boring, Inc.,
d.b.a. Wilde Construction Company,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 12, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CAMP,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Mastec, Inc. and Mastec North America, Inc. (collectively, “Mastec”) appeal
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United States Fire
Insurance Co. (“U.S. Fire”). Mastec filed a complaint for declaratory relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking to establish that U.S. Fire wrongfully denied coverage
for pollution damages caused by a punctured gas pipeline. U.S. Fire denied
coverage under one of the policy’s two exclusions for pollution damages. Mastec
claims that an endorsement to the policy modifying one of the pollution exclusions
rendered the policy ambiguous because it is no longer possible to determine which
pollution exclusion applies in the given circumstances.
This case is governed by Florida law. Insurance provisions susceptible to
more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and the other not,
are ambiguous and should be strictly construed against the insurer in favor of
coverage. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000). But,
*
Honorable Jack T. Camp, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
2
Mastec has not proposed -- nor can we devise -- a reasonable interpretation of the
exclusions that would allow this Court to construe the contract in favor of
coverage. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3