PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. LAFACE, No. 4:2021cv10001 - Document 34 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 5/3/2022. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. LAFACE Doc. 34 Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTTIERN DISTRICT OF FLOIUDA K EY W EST D IVISION In A dm iralty PROGRESSIVE SELECT W SUO CE CONP ANY, Plaintiff, CASE N O.:4:2l-cv-10001-. JLK STEVEN LAFACE, D efendant. STEVEN LM A CE, Cotmter-plaintiff, V. PRO GRESSIV E SELECT FN SU R AN CE COM PAN Y , Cotmter-Defendant. ORDER GRANTING PRO GRESSIVE'S M OTION FOR SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT TH IS M ATTER isbefore the Courtupon Plaintiff/cotm ter-D efendant,Progressive Select InstlranceCompany's(çtprogressive'')M otionforSllmmaryJudgment(thetGM otion'')(DE 20)and accompanyingStatementofM aterialFactsinSupportofM otionforSummaryJudgment(DE 21q. 1. BA CK G R O UN D OnJanuary 11,2021,ProgressivetiledanAmendedComplaintgDE 3jseekingdeclaratory judgment.According to the Complaint,Progressive alleges thatitisnotrequired to provide instzrmw e coverage tm der the Boat and Personal W atercraftPolicy issued to LaFace for any 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 2 of 9 defense,loss,dam age,orexpense suffered orincurred as a resultofthe bllrning and sinking of LaFace's Vessel on July 23,2020 because LaFace Nvas using the A/essel as his pHrnary or permanentresidence,in violation ofthe Policy. On M arch 19,2021,LaFace filed hisAnswer, AférmativeDefensesand CotmterclaimsII DE 5q.On January31,2022,PlaintifffileditsM otion forSllmmaryJudgmentII DE 20).OnFebrumy 28,2022,LaFacefiledhisResponseinOpposition L ' DE 23)totheM otion,andonM arch7,2022,ProgressiveReplied gDE 28j.OnApdl1,2022,the CourtconductedaheadngontheM otion gDE 30jandfoundthattheM otionshouldbegranted. II. R ELEV AN T U ND ISPU TED FA CTSI Followingllisseparationfrom hiswife,LaFacem oved outofhism adtalhom ein M iclligan irlFebruary 2020,located at24446 Brentwood Ddve,Brownstown,M ichigan (the GGkladtal Home''). LaFacetraveled to Florida,where he initially stayed in nine differenthotelsbefore purchasinga 2008Rinker320 ExpressCruiser(HlN :RNK90497. J708)(the1çVesse1''). LaFace broughtm any ofhispersonalbelongingsw 1111him to Flodda;m ostw ere stored in a storage lm it in N orth Port,Florida,and therem ainderon the V essel. Afterleaving them aritalhom ein Febnzary 2020,LaFace didnotspend any morenightsat theM adtalHome. LaFaceceased having any ownership interestin the M aritalHome in M arch 2020when hesold theM aiitalHom eto llisnow ex-wifeTeresa;however,Le ace'sdivorce was notfm alized lmtilO ctober2020. From the tim e Le ace sold the M aritalH om e in M arch 2020 to thedateoftheincidenton July 23,2020,LaFacedidnotown orrentahome irlFlorida,nordid he own orrentany otherrealproperty in Flodda. W hen applying forinsurance coverage w ith Progressive,Le ace stated the V esselwould be used forpleasure:LaFacewasasked Gçwhatistheprim a!y use ofthewatercraft''towllich he lTheundisputed factshavebeen takenfrom thejointstatementofthecasecontained intheParties'JointPretrial Stipulation(DE29)andreproducedhere. Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 3 of 9 replied Ghlm>just71lh:acnziser,youknow?''Hewasthen asked çtso,isthatpleasure?,''to which he replied7tlyes7yes.'' Relying on thisrepresentation thatthe Vesselwould be forpleasure use, Progressive issued LaFace a Boat and Personal W atercraftPolicy,Policy N llm ber 936673997, witheffectivedatesofFebnlary28,2020toFebrtzary28,2021(the;To1icy'').ThePolicyprovides comprehensivecoveragelim itsofEtthelesserofactualcash valueattimeoflosslessdeductibleor $75,000''and replacem entcostpersonaleffectslim itsof$3,000. LaFace allegesthatin M arch of2020 he setouton whatwassupposed tobea oneortwo monthjotmleyontheVesseltoseedifferentpartsoftheFloridaKeys,theBahamas,andtheDry Tortugas,and thatdueto enginetroubleand COVID-19 hewastm abletohavetheVesselworked on lm tilm id-luly 2020.LaFace allegeshe w astGstllck''in Tarpon Basin offthecoastofKey Largo, Floridaduringthattim e. Between February 28,2020 and July 23,2020,Le ace slepteitherin hotels,a cousin's houseizlCleam ater,ortheVessel.Specifically,LaFace stayed athotelsfrom M azch 11,2020to M arch 23,2020,whiletheVesselwasatBillBirdM arinaformaintenance;athiscousinM ichelle's house from June 16,2020 to June 21,2020;and athotels9om Jtme 21,2020 through July 14, 2020whileam echanicwasworkingonreplacing oneengineon theVesselandrebuilding another. The rem ainder ofthe tim e,Le ace slepton the V essel. On theevening ofJuly 23,2020,Le ace'sVesselcaughtftreandsnnk i!lTarponBasin off thecoastofKeyLargo,Florida(ûttheLoss'').The nightofthe Loss on July 23,2020,Le ace stayed ovenlightin anearby hoteland rented a car. After the Loss, LaFace and Progressive spoke over the telephone about his V essel's property damageclaim twice,on July 23,2020 and on July 28,20209each callwasrecorded for Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 4 of 9 quality asstlrancewith Le ace'spermission. Dtuing the recorded callon July 28,2020,LaFace m ade the follow ing statem entsto Progressive: Q.W herewereyou? W ereyou docked somewhere,orwereyou outon the w ater? A.Iwasoutonthewater. gcrosstalkl Q. OK.W ereyoubyyourselo A . Y es. Q.And,uh,w-,um,ljustwanttotmderstandalittlebit.W ereyou,uh,doyou liveontheboat,ordoyou,orwereyoujustoutthatdayfishingor... A .1havebeen living,Ihave been living on theboat. ProgressivedeniedcoverageforLe ace'sclaim onthebasisthatthePolicy prohibitsusing the V esselasa çlprim ary residence.'' LaFace challenges Progressive'sdenial. 111. STAN D AR D O F R EV IEW SummaryjudgmentisappropriateGtifthemovantshowsthatthereisnogenuinedisputeas toany materialfactand themovantisentitled tojudgmentasamatteroflaw.''Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).Themoving party bearstheburdenofestablishingthatnogenuineissuesofmatetialfact remain.Celotex Corp.v.Catrett,477U.S.317(1986).Anissueoffactismaterialifitisalegal elem entofthe claim tmderthe applicable substantive 1aw which could affectthe outcom eofthe case.Allen v.TysonFoods,lnc.,121F.3d642,646(11th Cir.1997).Anissueisgenuineifthe com plete record could lead a rationaltrieroffactto fm d forthe nonm oving party. f#. A court may grantsummary judgment:tindeclaratoryjudgment actions seeking a declaration Eas to instzrance coveragej when the instlrer's duty,if any,rests solely on the applicabilityoftheinsurancepolicy,theconstnlction and effectofwllich isam atteroflam ''FfG Ins.Co.v.SmartSch.,401F.Supp.2d1334,1337 (S.D.Fla.2005)(quotingNorthland Cas.Co.v. HBE Corp.,160F.supp.zd 1348,1358(M .D.Fla.2001)). Gfln adeclaratoryjudgmentaction,&if the allegationsin the com plaintalleging a claim againstthe insured eitherare acts notcovered by Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 5 of 9 the policy or are excluded f' rom the policy's coverage,the inslzreris not obligated to defend or indemnify.'''1(L(quotingNorthland,160F.supp.zdat1357-58). IV . JUR ISD ICTIO N AN D APPLICA BLE LAW Thiscaseinvolvesan admiralty and maritime claim within the meaning of28U.S.C.j 1333andRule9(h)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurebecausethisdisputeinvolvesapolicy ofmnrineinstlrmwe,which isamaritimecontractsubjecttoadmiraltyjudsdiction. Although the Adm iralty Clause ofthe United StatesConstitm ion veststhe federalcourts withjudsdictiontohearmadtime-contractcases,tGitdoesnotfollow ...thateveryterm in every m aritimecontractcan onlybecontrolledby som efederally defm edadm iralty 1=le.'' WilburnBoat Co.v.Fireman'sFund Ins.Co.,348 U.S.310,313 (1955). In the absence ofa Gjudicially established federal adm iralty nlley''w e rely on state law w hen addressing questions ofm arine insurance.1d.at314,320-21;seealsoFenbyv.M/VThreeD ofGuernsey,217F.App'x 846,848 (11thCiz.2007)(percurinm)(G1ThedistrictcottrtappliedFlorida1aw inim erpretingthecontracts ofmarineinsllrance''l. çGunderFloridalaw,interpretation ofan insurance contractisam atterof1aw to bedecided by the court.'' Gas Kwick Inc.v.United Pac.Ins.Co.,58 F.3d 1536,1538-39 (11th Cir. 1995).Thequestionofwhetheraninsuranceprovisionisambiguousislikewiseaquestionof1aw to be determined by thecourt. WestchesterGen.H osp.,Inc.v.EvanstonIns.Co.,N o.19-22831- Civ,2020 W L 4501947,2020 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 79048,at*6 (S.D.Fla.M ay 4,2020), 'see alsoJamesRiverIns.Co.v.GroundDownEngk,Inc.,540F.3d 1270,1274(11th Cir.2008). Gtglqfapolicyprovision isclearandtmambiguous,itshouldbeenforced according to its termswhetheritisabasicpolicy provision ( ?ran exclusionary provision.'' TaurusHoldings,lnc. v.U& Fftf drGuar.Co.,913 So.2d 528,532 (Fla.2005);Sieglev.ProgressiveConsumersIns. 5 Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 6 of 9 Co.,819So.2d732,734-35(F1a.2002).However,Gctoallow forsuchaconstructiontheprovision mustacmally beambiguous...(andqcourtsmay notrewritecontracts,add menningthatisnot present,orotherwise reach results contrmy to the intentionsofthe parties.'' Taurus,913 So.2d at 532. Ultim ately,Gtin the absenceofsom e nmbiguity,theintentofthepartiesto awritten contract must be ascertained from the words used in the contract, without resort to exttinsic evidence.''Fireman'sFundlns.Co.v.TropicalShi ppingdrConstr.Co.,254F.3d987,1003(11th Cir.2001);seealsoSouthern-ownersIns.Co.v.EasdonRhodesdrAssocs.LLC,872 F.3d 1161, (11th 2017) (aflmningsummary judgmententbrcingexclusionclause unnmbiguouspolicy and explaining GlFlorida 1aw is clearthatnm biguity doesnotresultsimply because complex analysisisrequired to discern theplain m eaning ofaprovision ofan insurance contracf'). A N M UY SIS ThePolic, y issuedby ProgressivetoLe acefortheVesselexcludescoverageforproperty damage lossesttarising outofan accidentwhile using the watercraftasa pHm aty orperm anent residence''(the GiResidence Exclusion'').EDE 3,Ex.Aq.In the 146 daysbetween insuring the V esselon Febrt zary 28,2020,and the Loss occuning on July 23,2020,Le ace spent 106 rlightsz (orapproximately73% ofthetotalnights)sleepingaboardtheVessel.(DE 21!!24j.LaFacesplit theremaining40nightsbetween arlassortmentofhotelsandhiscousin'shouse.16L!! 23. The question presently beforetheCotlrtiswhetherLaFace'slivingaboardtheV esselqualisesasusing his V esselas a ttprim ary residence''in violation of the Policy's Residence Exclusion. For the reasonsbelow ,the Courtfindsthatitdoes. 2In!24ofProgressive'sStatementofMaterialFactsinSupportofitsMotionforSummaryJudgment(DE 21q,itis statedthatLe acespent105nightsaboardtheVessel.Forpurposesoftheinstantruling,thedifferencebetween 105 nightsand 106nightsisconsideredim m aterial. 6 Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 7 of 9 Propessive contends summary judgmentis appropdate because,dudng the relevant peziod,LaFace spentm ore nightsresiding aboard hisV esselthan anp vhere else,stored personal belongings on the V essel,received m ailata nearby U PS store,and had no other residence. See LDE 202. Regardless ofwhether he subjectively intended to use the Vesselas his primary residence,Progressive azguesthatthe totality ofthe circum stancesestablishesthatLe ace used theVesselashisprimary residence,thereby voiding coverageunderthePolicy.1d ln response,LaFace contends he took a recreationalboating trip w hile in transition from oneresidence to another,wllich ended pp being extended by engine trouble and the COW D-19 Pandemicandresulting lockdowns.See L D E 23).LaFaceexplainsthatheneverintended touse the Vesselas a ttprim ary orpermanentresidence''and was sttzck on the Vesselbecause he was tm able to geta m echnnic to fix the V esselfor several m onths. Id. LaFace argues the Policy's Residence Exclusion suffersfrom a latentambiguity because itdoesnotaccountforthe strange circllm stancesLe acefoundhimselfin.1d. The decision in Progressive G arden State Insurance Company v.M etius,Case N o.18- 2893,2022 W L 214546,2022 U.S.Dist.LEM S 13603 (D.N.J.Jarl.25,2022)isinstructive. M etius involved the application ofallidentically worded residence exclusion and,likethiscase, exnm ined w hetherthe instlred used the vesselas his tGprim ary residence.'' The courtdeterm ined thatGlthePolicy tenn Gplimary residence'isunnm biguousasam atterof1aw andreferstothemain, ptincipalplace where the inslzred lives- thatis,the m ain,ptincipalplace where the instlred m aintains a physicalpresence as an inhabitant. In even sim pler teznns,it is where the inslzred m ainly physically resides.'' Id.at*17. ThecourtknM etiususedatotalil -of-the-circllmstu cesapproach andexnm inedthepattern of contact the instlred, M etius, had w ith the pal-ticular residence. Id. at *19-20. Though it 7 Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 8 of 9 acknowledgedtheinsured'sownsubjectiveviewsregazdingtheirprimaryresidencewasonefactor to consider w hen undertnking a prim ary residence analysis w itllin the context of an instlrance coveragedispute,thecourtexplained' .GGtherelevarltconsiderationsareobjectiveones...where the l dividualeats,sleeps,storespersonalitem s,and receivesmail;the gequency and nature of theindividual'spresenceatthe residence;and the addressused on docllm entssuch asa ddver's license,tax rettuns,and otherrecords.'' Id.at*19. O fthese factors,the focus ofthe inquiry is on çlfactualphysicalpresence.'' Id W hereasM etiusorllyspent59outof149nightsonhisvessel(approximately40%$,LaFace spent106 outof146nightsonllisVessel(approximately 73%4.UrllikeLe ace,whoownedno realproperty when the Loss occurred,M etius also had a weekend hom e,yet,despite spending nights during the policy period at his Blairstow n hom e,the court still fotm d the vessel to be M etius's tlprim ary residence.'' TheCourtfindsthatthePolicy'sResidenceExclusion,whichprohibitsusingtheVesselas aprimary orpenuanentresidence,isunambiguousasam atteroflaw,andreferstotheplacewhere the insured permanently orroutinely orm ostly lives. The tmdisputed record evidence and the totalityofthecircdlmstancespresentedestablishthatLaFacespentthemajodtyoflzistimeliving on theVesselandw asusingtheVesselashisprim aryresidence atthetim e oftheLoss. W . C O N CLU SIO N No genuine issues of material fact preclude the entry of slzmmary judgment in Progressive's favor. LaFace used the V esselasltisprim ary residence,in violation ofthe Policy's Residence Exclusion. A ccordingly,itis O R DER ED ,A D JUD G ED ,and DE CRE ED that: (1)Progressive'sM otionforSummary JudgmentEDE 20jisGRANTED;and (2)TheCourtreservesjurisdictionfornzlingonmotionsforfeesandcosts. 8 Case 4:21-cv-10001-JLK Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2022 Page 9 of 9 DOM ! AN D ORDERED in Cham bers at the James Lawrence Ioing FederalJustice Building and U nited StatesCourthouse,M inm i,Floridatllis3rd day ofM ay,2022. * ES LA N CE K. IN TED STATES DISTRI cc: A llcounselofrecord 9 JU D GE
]]>
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.
