Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12816
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-80831-KAM
ALTMAN CONTRACTORS, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Arizona company,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 26, 2018)
Before JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,* District Judge.
*
The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia,
sitting by designation.
Case: 15-12816 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
This case returns to us after our certification of a dispositive question of state
law to the Florida Supreme Court. For background, we refer the reader to our
previous opinion in this case, Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster
Specialty Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2016). In that opinion, we certified
the following question:
Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida
Statutes a “suit” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by
C&F to ACI?
Id. at 1326. The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative,
explaining that “[a]lthough the chapter 558 process does not constitute a ‘civil
proceeding,’ it is included in the policy’s definition of ‘suit’ as an ‘alternative
dispute resolution proceeding’ to which the insurer’s consent is required to invoke
the insurer’s duty to defend the insured.” Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum &
Forster Specialty Ins. Co., --- So. 3d ---, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535, at *5
(Fla. Dec. 14, 2017). The Florida Supreme Court did “not address whether, in this
case, C&F consented to [ACI’s] participation in the chapter 558 process because it
[was] outside the scope of the certified question and an issue of fact disputed by
the parties.” Id.
The Florida Supreme Court, therefore, reached a different conclusion than
did the district court regarding whether chapter 558 constitutes an alternative
Case: 15-12816 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
dispute resolution proceeding (and accordingly a “suit” under the CGL policies at
issue). Compare id. with Altman Contractors, 832 F.3d at 1325 (explaining district
court’s holding that chapter 558 is not an alternative dispute resolution proceeding
and, therefore, not a ‘suit’ under the CGL policies). Because “state courts are the
ultimate expositors of state law,” Reaves v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 717 F.3d
886, 903 (11th Cir. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court’s determination on this point
is dispositive. Given the benefit of this answer to our certified question, we
reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of C&F, vacate the final judgment,
and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. We thank the
Florida Supreme Court for accepting, and answering, the certified question.
REVERSED, VACATED AND REMANDED.
Case: 15-12816 Date Filed: 01/26/2018 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --