A federal appeals courtroom Monday affirmed that an Ohio Farmers Insurance coverage Co. unit was not obligated to defend or insure a Florida contractor in reference to a fancy dispute with certainly one of its subcontractors.
The Diaz Fritz Group Inc., based mostly in Temple Terrace, Florida, employed Howard Baker Inc. in Could 2009 as a subcontractor to carry out basis work at College Group Hospital Carrollwood in Tampa, in response to the ruling by the eleventh U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals in Atlanta inThe Diaz Fritz Group Inc. d.b.a. Diaz Fritz Isabel vs. Westfield Insurance coverage Co.
Diaz Fritz agreed to pay Tampa-based HBI $290,000 to finish the undertaking. However issues developed and, in response to Diaz Fritz, HBI negligently precipitated a number of the hospital’s different property to flood, incurring substantial injury.
After the hospital demanded Diaz Fritz remediate the state of affairs inside three days, the corporate reached out to Westfield Insurance coverage, however the insurer stated HBI was liable for the flooding. Westfield despatched the declare to HBI’s insurer, Zurich American Insurance coverage Co., however the insurers couldn’t agree on whether or not Zurich’s coverage required it to supply protection to Diaz Fritz as a further insured.
In the meantime, with out looking for Westfield’s approval, Diaz Fritz paid for the required repairs — which totaled about $506,000 — with out admitting fault. It then determined to withhold the $290,000 it had agreed to pay HBI for its work however nonetheless remained on the hook for greater than $200,000 of the quantity it had paid the hospital.
After Westfield refused to defend it, Diaz Fritz filed go well with towards HBI in state courtroom, the place a jury discovered HBI partially liable for $267,00 in damages. Offsetting the $290,000 Diaz Fritz had withheld, the jury awarded HBI $23,400 in damages.
Diaz Fritz filed go well with towards Westfield in U.S. District Court docket in Tampa, looking for a declaratory judgment the insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify it.
The district courtroom dominated in Westfield’s favor and was affirmed by a three-judge appeals courtroom panel.
The district courtroom dominated in Westfield’s favor “after concluding that the plain and unambiguous coverage language” lined “fits”’ for damages due to property injury, the appeals courtroom ruling stated.
“In distinction, it discovered that HBI’s affirmative protection solely sought to offset the quantity of damages Diaz Fritz claimed it was owed in a contract motion. We agree, and discover Diaz Fritz’s opposite argument unconvincing,” the panel stated, in holding Westfield was not obligated to supply both a protection or indemnification.
Westfield legal professional Aram P. Megerian, a accomplice with Cole, Scott & Kissane P.A., in Tampa, stated in a press release he believed the courtroom reached the best conclusion. Diaz Fritz attorneys didn’t reply to a request for remark.