Sydelle Ruderman, et al. v. Washingont National Insurance Corporation, No. 10-14714 (11th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on February 17, 2012.
Download PDF
Case: 10-14714 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________________________ No. 10-14714 _____________________________ D. C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-23401-JIC SYDELLE RUDERMAN, by and through her Attorney-in-fact, Bonnie Schwartz, SYLVIA POWERS, by and through her Attorneyin-fact, Les Powers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus WASHINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to Pioneer Life Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________________________ (September 24, 2013) Case: 10-14714 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 2 of 3 Before MARTIN, EDMONDSON, and SUHRHEINRICH, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This case involves a dispute about the proper interpretation of a home health care insurance policy under Florida law. The case returns to us after we certified this question to the Supreme Court of Florida: In this case, does the Policy s Automatic Benefit Increase Percentage apply to the dollar values of the Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount and the Per Occurrence Maximum Benefit ? We noted that answering this question might involve answering three sub-questions: A. Does an ambiguity exist about whether the Policy s Automatic Benefit Increase Percentage applies only to the Home Health Care Daily Benefit or whether it also applies to the Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount and the Per Occurrence Maximum Benefit ? B. If an ambiguity exists in this insurance policy -- as we understand that it does -- should courts first attempt to resolve the ambiguity by examining available extrinsic evidence? C. Applying the Florida law principles of policy construction, does the Policy s Automatic Benefit Increase Percentage apply to the Lifetime Maximum Benefit Amount and to the Per Occurrence Maximum Benefit or does it apply only to the Home Health Care Daily Benefit ? * Honorable Richard F. Suhrheinrich, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 10-14714 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 3 of 3 Ruderman v. Wash. Nat l Ins. Corp., 671 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2012). 1 The Supreme Court of Florida has advised us that the answer is yes to the main certified question, yes to sub-question A, no to sub-question B, and yes to sub-question C. Wash. Nat l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 38 Fla. L. Weekly S. 511 (Fla. 2013). We thank the Florida court for its guidance. In the light of these definite responses, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellees.2 AFFIRMED. 1 For background, see Ruderman, 671 F.3d at 1210-11. 2 To the extent that a party seeks any kind of award of attorneys fees for the work performed during the course of this appeal -- including for the work performed in resolving the certified question in the Supreme Court of Florida -- that party must file a proper application for those attorneys fees with this Court. See generally 11th Cir. R. 39-2. 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.
