Marina N. Garcia v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 05-14720 (11th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 26, 2006.
Download PDF
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 05-14720 _________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DEC 04, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D.C. Docket No. 05-20708-CV-PCH MARIA N. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (December 4, 2007) Before DUBINA, KRAVITCH and JOHN R. GIBSON,* Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Honorable John R. Gibson, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. Maria N. Garcia appeals from an order of the district court dismissing her action against the Federal Insurance Company claiming that Federal s homeowner s policy, insuring Laura Anderson, extended coverage to Garcia as Anderson s employee. The dispute over coverage began after Garcia struck and seriously injured a pedestrian when her foot slipped off a worn brake pedal while she was doing errands for Anderson in a car belonging to Anderson s son-in-law. The pedestrian sued Garcia for negligence. Garcia settled the lawsuit for $7,000,000 and sought coverage from Federal, Anderson s insurance carrier, which denied her claim.1 She argues that she should be covered under the policy because Anderson failed to maintain the brake pedal in proper condition. We set out the controlling issues in this case in our prior opinion, Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 473 F.3d 1131 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam), and concluded that we could not proceed on issues of Florida law without state court guidance. Accordingly, we certified two questions to the Florida Supreme Court: (1) Is an insurance policy that defines a covered person as any other person with respect to liability because of acts or omissions of the insured ambiguous? , and (2) Does an insurance policy providing coverage for an additional insured with respect to 1 A full presentation of the facts are available in our prior opinion, Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., 473 F.3d 1131 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 2 liability because of acts or omissions of the named insured limit coverage to instances in which the additional insured is vicariously liable for acts of the named insured? Id. at 1136. The Florida Supreme Court answered no and yes, respectively. In other words, the policy is not ambiguous, and coverage for additional insureds (such as Garcia) other than the named insured (in this case, Anderson) is limited to instances in which the additional insured is vicariously liable for acts of the named insured. Garcia v. Fed. Ins. Co., --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 3101820, *1 (Fl. Oct. 25, 2007). Since Garcia was sued for her own negligence, not Anderson s negligence, she is not covered by the terms of the policy. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
