Menu

Eleventh Circuit Maps a Route Around Four Corners

Property & Casualty Insurance   |   July 8, 2014
Download   
Share Page

Florida adheres to the "four corners rule," under which a liability insurer’s duty to defend an insured is determined solely from the allegations of the underlying complaint. In Composite Structures, Inc. v. The Continental Ins. Co., the plaintiff asserted that the rule requires insurers to defend, even where the underlying claim clearly falls within a policy exclusion, if the complaint fails to allege additional facts that might establish an exception to the exclusion. In March 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed.

In Composite, two employees were allegedly injured by exposure to carbon monoxide on a "pleasure vessel" that Composite Structures designed, built, and sold. Composite was insured under two marine services commercial general liability policies, each of which excluded coverage for any damage caused by the "discharge" or "release" of "pollutants." The policies also provided, however, that the pollution exclusion would not apply where the insured could establish that five conditions had been met, including that the insured learned of the "occurrence" within 72 hours after it commenced, and that it was reported to the insurer within 30 days thereafter. Because the underlying complaint was filed three years after the alleged injury, and because the insured gave no notice of the claim before filing the complaint, it was undisputed that these conditions had not been satisfied.

Noting that the sailors’ complaint was silent about such matters as timely notice under Composite’s insurance policy, Composite nevertheless argued that the four corners rule prohibited application of the pollution exclusion, because its operation could not be established solely on the basis of the allegations of the underlying complaint. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found, however, that Florida’s courts recognize "some natural exceptions" to the rule, including one for cases in which the insurer refuses to defend based on "factual issues that would not normally be alleged in the complaint." The court held that "whether the insured provided sufficient notice of the claim" is one such issue.

Future disputes about what would "normally be alleged" are likely to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The insurer’s position will be strongest where the extrinsic information is not required to establish the underlying plaintiff’s legal claims, where it relates only to the relationship between the policyholder and the insurer, and especially where (as in Composite) it is uncontested as a matter of fact.

In what might be an even more significant ruling, the court also rejected the theory that an insurer is "required" to file a declaratory judgment action before relying on extrinsic facts to deny a defense. As the New York Court of Appeals did just a month earlier, in K2 Investment Group v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., the Eleventh Circuit suggested that such a suit is still "the preferable means for determining [a] duty to defend." But especially where, as in Composite, there is no factual dispute for the suit to resolve, or where filing a suit might harm the insured, seeking declaratory judgment might actually be ill-advised.


©2019 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.