Insured Loses on "Sole Negligence" Language

In Barden Mississippi Gaming LLC v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2011 WL 1262264 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an insurer did not have a duty to indemnify an additional insured because the policy provided coverage only for the named insured's "sole negligence" and the named insured was only found 50% negligent in the underlying action. In a previous appeal in the same matter, the Court held that the insurer had a duty to defend because it was possible that the additional insured could be found 100% liable. The court, however, also concluded that the question of indemnification was premature as the underlying case had not yet reached a verdict. Ultimately, the jury in the underlying action found the additional insured 50% negligent and the insured 50% negligent. As a result, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the insurer was not obligated to indemnify the additional insured for the judgment in the underlying case because the additional insured was not "solely negligent."

Be wary of "solely negligent" language in either an insurance policy or any other contract. You could be giving away valuable rights in agreeing to be paid or be indemnified with such language. If you would like a copy of this decision or have any questions regarding this decision, please feel free to contact me via my profile on LinkedIn at

http://www.linkedin.com/in/michelleoterovaldes or miamipandi@comcast.net.

Comments

ReThink + ReUse Center "It's How We Roll" Fun Raiser -- Bowling Night -- October 16, 2014

As many of my readers may be aware, I am the Chair of the ReThink + ReUse Center, a non-for-profit educational and environmental Center in Miami educating children into rethinking reuseable materials for learning through play. The ReThink and ReUse Center’s Quality Play is Learning Program provides a series of educational and participatory workshops based on the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and Harvard's Project Zero Visible Thinking. The Children’s Trust is the major funder of this program, but the Center is required to continually fundraise for the balance its annual budget. The Center is having a fun event you are invited to--the ReThink + Reuse Center’s “It’s How We Roll” bowling event on October 16, 2014 at Splitsville Luxury Lanes from 18:00 to 21:30 hours. My firm, Comcast and Waste Management are major sponsors for this event, but we could use a few more sponsors. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, please let me know by reaching me at mov@chalos...

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector. The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.” At the ...

Miami Shipping Law

Search This Blog