Markel American v. Curtis Jones, No. 07-15718 (11th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 07-15718 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ JUNE 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 06-00494-CV-4-RH-WCS MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, versus CURTIS JONES, an Individual and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Curtis Jones and Shabraeliah Jones, minors, ANNIE JONES, an Individual and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Curtis Jones and Shabraeliah Jones, minors MEI HOLDINGS INC., A Delaware Corporation, MARTIN ELECTRONICS INC., Defendants-Counter Claimant-Appellees. ________________________ No. 08-10173 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 06-00494-CV-4-RH-WCS MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellant, versus CURTIS JONES, an Individual and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Curtis Jones and Shabraeliah Jones, minors, ANNIE JONES, an Individual and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Curtis Jones and Shabraeliah Jones, minors, MEI HOLDINGS INC., A Delaware Corporation, MARTIN ELECTRONICS INC., Defendants-CounterClaimants-Appellees, DAVID COLE, et al., Defendants. 2 ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (June 18, 2008) Before BIRCH, DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Markel American Insurance Company ( Markel ) appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Martin Electronics, Inc., MEI Holdings Inc. ( MEI ), Curtis Jones, and Annie Jones. Markel argues that the district court erred by refusing to enforce an exclusion in its commercial umbrella liability insurance policy providing excess coverage to MEI. Markel says that it has no duty to indemnify MEI for amounts paid to settle lawsuits arising from injuries to MEI s employees in the workplace because the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for MEI employees who were injured by other employees during the course of their employment. Alternatively, Markel says that a material issue of fact exists, requiring the case to go to trial. We agree with the district court that the exclusion is ambiguous because it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, one providing coverage and another limiting coverage. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 3 34 (Fla. 2000). As a result of the ambiguity, the exclusion must be interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the drafter who prepared the policy. Id. As the district court held, the most logical reading of the exclusion requires a direct or immediate injury by a fellow employee, which does not fit the factual circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s Order Granting Summary Judgment On Liability, dated September 6, 2007. AFFIRMED. 4
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.
