[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
_____________________
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-12829 May 25, 2005
_____________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 01-00054 CV-1-MMP
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellant,
versus
PCR INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Counter-
Claimant-Appellee,
DEBRA TURNER, As Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Thomas Paul Turner III, JAMES
CREIGHTON, et al.
Defendants.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
__________________________
(May 25, 2005)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH and GIBSON*, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case arises out of an insurance coverage dispute controlled by Florida
law. It returns to this Court after we certified two questions to the Florida
Supreme Court: (1) “Does Florida insurance law require a reading of specific
intent into an insurance clause excepting from liability coverage ‘[b]odily injury
intentionally caused or aggravated’ by the insured?” and (2) “Is PCR in this case
entitled to liability coverage based on the language of this policy agreement, read
in the light of Florida’s law of interpreting insurance policies?” Travelers Indem.
Co. v. PCR Inc., 326 F.3d 1190, 1194 (11th Cir. 2003). The Florida Supreme
Court answered “yes” to both. Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 889 So.2d 779
(Fla. 2004). We now affirm the district court.
This matter began as a tort case in the Florida state court system, and the
Florida Supreme Court ultimately concluded that issues of fact precluded summary
judgment. Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683, 691 (Fla. 2000). The parties here
disputed whether the insurance policy between Travelers and PCR covered the
harm alleged by the Turner plaintiffs. It does. The Florida Supreme Court said
*
Honorable John R. Gibson, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
that the insurance contract at issue covers against claims “brought under Turner’s
objectively-substantially-certain standard, where the injured employee does not
allege that the employer actually intended to cause injury.” Traveler’s Indem. Co.,
889 So.2d at 785.
Accordingly, the district court properly -- albeit for different reasons --
denied Traveler’s motion for summary judgment and granted PCR’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3