Camico Mutual Insurance Company v. Abraham Rogozinski, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15291
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00762-TJC-MCR
CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
a California Mutual Insurance Corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ABRAHAM ROGOZINSKI,
MAJORIE ROGOZINSKI,
CHAIM ROGOZINSKI,
JEANIE ROGOZINSKI,
SAM ROGOZINSKI,
RANDI ROGOZINSKI,
Defendants - Appellants,
PRESSER, LAHNEN & EDELMAN, P.A.,
Defendant.
Case: 12-15291 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 23, 2013)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants, the Rogozinski brothers—Abraham, Chaim, and Sam—all
contributed to medical inventions which were patented and then licensed to
medical manufacturers. The proceeds from these ventures were erroneously
classified in their federal income tax returns by their tax accountant, the Presser
firm, as ordinary income instead of capital gains. The Rogozinskis sued the
Presser firm alleging negligence in the preparation of their tax returns from 1989
through 2006 and claiming damages due to their overpayment of income taxes.
Presser sought coverage from Appellee Camico Mutual Insurance Company under
Presser’s professional liability insurance policy with Camico. When the
Rogozinskis and the Presser firm settled their case, the only outstanding question
was whether Camico was obligated to pay the per claim policy limit of $1,000,000
to the Rogozinskis or whether the Rogozinskis’s damage claim constituted two or
more separate claims, thereby triggering the policy’s $2,000,000 aggregate limit.
In the declaratory judgment action filed by Camico, the district court agreed with
Case: 12-15291 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Camico that under the definitions in the policy the Rogozinskis’s claim must be
viewed as only one claim limited to the $1,000,000 cap in coverage.
Having considered the briefs and oral argument of the parties, we agree with
the district court that the express language of the policy makes it clear that the
Rogozinskis’s claim is one claim not the two or more separate claims contemplated
by the language of the Camico policy.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 12-15291 Date Filed: 09/23/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --