[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-11660 JULY 27, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00996-CV-T-23-MSS
KATHLEEN MILLER,
ROD MILLER,
husband of Kathleen Miller,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July27, 2006)
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case returns to us after we certified a question to the Florida Supreme
Court regarding the interpretation of § 627.848, Fla. Stat. (2002). The question we
certified read: “Whether § 627.848, Fla. Stat. (2002) contemplates a single date of
cancellation for the insurance contract as a whole or whether the contract can be
cancelled as to different insureds at different times depending on when a statutorily
required notice is given to that insured?” Miller v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 410 F.3d
678, 681-82 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).1
The Florida Supreme Court answered that “the plain language of section
627.848, Florida Statutes (2002), contemplates a single cancellation date for the
insurance policy as a whole” and that “all statutory, regulatory, or contractual
requirements for cancellation must be satisfied before a policy may be canceled.”
Miller v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. SC05-936, 2006 WL 1375241, at *5 (Fla. May
18, 2006). Here, the district court construed the statute to allow for two different
cancellation dates, one of which occurred before the insurer, Scottsdale Insurance,
complied with all contractual requirements for cancellation and granted summary
judgment in favor of the insurer. Miller, 410 F.3d at 679. This ruling plainly
conflicts with the Florida Supreme Court’s answer to our certified question.
Therefore, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings
1
The facts are set out in our initial opinion. Miller, 410 F.3d at 678-79.
2
consistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision.
3