Case: 12-14772 Date Filed: 04/10/2013 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14772
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00414-CG-B
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GAYLE HILL, et al.,
Defendants,
JOHN A. PANKRATZ,
RODNEY I. CAMMAUF,
GARWOOD WOLFE,
JANET WOLFE,
JAMES MCNALLY,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 10, 2013)
Case: 12-14772 Date Filed: 04/10/2013 Page: 2 of 7
Before HULL, WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants John A. Pankratz, Rodney I. Cammauf, Garwood Wolfe, Janet
Wolfe, and James McNally appeal the district court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of New Hampshire Insurance Co. (New Hampshire) in this
declaratory judgment action. The district court found that, according to an
insurance policy, New Hampshire owed neither a duty to defend nor a duty to
indemnify to Leisure Tyme RV, Inc. (Leisure Tyme), a seller of recreational
vehicles (RVs) whom Appellants had sued in state court. Appellants argue on
appeal that the district court erroneously applied Florida law to interpret the
insurance policy in question. In addition, Appellants challenge the district court’s
interpretation of the policy’s terms, including “bodily injury,” “care, custody or
control,” and “loss of use.” After a thorough review of the record and briefs, we
affirm.
Appellants were RV owners who, between June 2008 and January 2009,
contracted with Leisure Tyme to trade in their used RVs towards the purchase
price of new RVs. In consideration of Appellants’ promise to purchase new RVs,
Leisure Tyme promised to pay the remaining loan balances Appellants owed on
their trade-in RVs. Unfortunately, Leisure Tyme did not hold up its end of the
bargain, and filed for bankruptcy on March 19, 2009. The bankruptcy court
2
Case: 12-14772 Date Filed: 04/10/2013 Page: 3 of 7
modified the automatic bankruptcy stay to allow Appellants to collect their claims
to the extent of Leisure Tyme’s bond or insurance coverage. Appellants then sued
Leisure Tyme and its owner, Gayle Hill, in state court for various bodily and
property injuries. New Hampshire defended Leisure Tyme and Hill pursuant to a
reservation of rights, and later brought this declaratory judgment action in federal
court.
New Hampshire issued an insurance policy to Leisure Tyme effective from
June 1, 2008, through June 1, 2009. The policy was issued in Mary Esther,
Florida. The policy provides that New Hampshire would pay all the sums the
insured must pay “as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to
which this insurance applies caused by ‘accident’ and resulting from ‘garage
operations’ other than the ownership, maintenance or use of covered ‘autos.’”
New Hampshire moved for summary judgment in the district court, arguing
that it owed Leisure Tyme and its owner, Gayle Hill, neither a duty to defend nor a
duty to indemnify under the policy. The district court granted New Hampshire’s
motion, and this appeal followed.
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Perry v. Sec’y,
Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 664 F.3d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir. 2011). We agree with the
district court that Florida law governs the policy’s interpretation. Because the
district court sat in Alabama, it was obliged to follow Alabama’s lex loci
3
Case: 12-14772 Date Filed: 04/10/2013 Page: 4 of 7
contractus doctrine, which requires that Alabama courts interpret contracts
according to the law of the state in which they were made. See O’Neal v.
Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1046 (11th Cir. 1992) (“A federal court in a diversity
case is required to apply the laws, including principles of conflict of laws, of the
state in which the federal court sits.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland v. Brown, 582 So. 2d 502, 506 (Ala. 1991) (noting that
Alabama courts follows the doctrine of lex loxi contractus).
In Florida, courts will construe an insurance contract in accordance with its
plain language. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000).
An insurer’s duty to defend is determined by the complaint’s allegations, and arises
when the complaint alleges facts that bring the suit within the policy’s coverage.
Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 908 So. 2d 435, 442–43 (Fla. 2005) (per curiam).
Because the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend, the duty to
indemnify cannot exist if there is no duty to defend. See WellCare of Fla., Inc. v.
Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 16 So. 3d 904, 906 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).
In light of Florida law, it is clear that Appellants did not suffer “bodily
injuries” because their complained-of injuries—pecuniary loss and damage to
credit worthiness—do not constitute physical injuries to their persons. Further,
Florida’s “impact rule” bars Appellants’ mental anguish—and any physical
manifestations of mental anguish—caused by Leisure Tyme’s breach of contract.
4
Case: 12-14772 Date Filed: 04/10/2013 Page: 5 of 7
See Willis v. Gami Golden Glades, LLC, 967 So. 2d 846, 850 (Fla. 2007) (per
curiam) (holding that in order to recover in a case without impact, the plaintiff’s
physical manifestations from mental anguish must occur within a short time after
the traumatizing incident; and the plaintiff must see, hear, or arrive on the scene of
the traumatizing incident). In short, Appellants made no showing that they
suffered “bodily injuries” within the meaning of Florida law. Therefore, New
Hampshire has neither a duty to defend nor indemnify Leisure Tyme regarding
Appellants’ allegations of bodily injury.
We also agree with the district court that New Hampshire does not have a
duty to defend or indemnify Leisure Tyme under the policy’s “property damage”
provision, because Appellants’ complaint seeks damages “which would include the
loss of use of the trade-in RVs.” One of the policy’s exclusions precludes
coverage for damage to property “in the ‘insured’s’ care, custody, or control.”
Because the loss-of-use damages sought by Appellants occurred while the RVs
were in the control of Leisure Tyme, the exclusion applies here. Moreover, the
policy also specifically precludes damages for loss of use caused by a “delay or
failure by [Leisure Tyme] or anyone acting on [Leisure Tyme’s] behalf to perform
a contract or agreement in accordance with its terms.” We conclude that this
exclusion also applies, because all of Appellants’ damages arise from Leisure
Tyme’s failure to satisfy contractual obligations it owed to Appellants.
5
Case: 12-14772 Date Filed: 04/10/2013 Page: 6 of 7
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
6
Case: 12-14772 Date Filed: 04/10/2013 Page: 7 of 7
JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I agree with the majority that the plaintiffs, who allege that they suffered
mental anguish as a result of the defendants’ breach of contract, have not suffered
“bodily injury” as that term is defined in the policy issued by New Hampshire (i.e.,
“bodily injury, sickness, or disease”). But the reason is not that Florida’s so-called
impact rule governs, but rather that, as a matter of Florida insurance law – which
controls given Alabama’s choice of law rules – the term “bodily injury” does not
encompass emotional distress unaccompanied by physical contact. See Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Clohessy, 32 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1336 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (predicting how
the Florida Supreme Court would resolve the issue, based in part on the majority
rule in other jurisdictions), question certified, 199 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2000), rev.
dismissed, 763 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2000) (table).
7