Florida Supreme Court Answers Certified Question in Altman v. Crum

In Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 832 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2016), the Eleventh Circuit certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: Is the notice-and-repair process set forth in Chapter 558, Florida Statutes, a “suit” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by Crum & Forster to Altman Contractors? The Florida Supreme Court recently answered in the affirmative. Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 232 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 2017).
 
Altman was the general contractor for a high-rise condominium. Crum & Forster (C&F) insured Altman. C&F’s policies stated that it had the right and duty to defend against any “suit.” The policy defined “suit” to mean a “civil proceeding,” including an “arbitration proceeding” or “any other dispute resolution proceeding” that the insured submitted to with C&F’s consent.
 
The condominium association served Altman with Chapter 558 notices of construction defect claims. Altman notified C&F and demanded a defense and indemnification. C&F denied it had a duty to defend, reasoning that the notices did not constitute a “suit.” So Altman hired its own counsel. The condominium association then supplemented its notice with additional claims and demanded that Altman correct them. C&F maintained its position but retained counsel for Altman under a reservation of rights. Altman objected to the counsel, demanded its original counsel, and requested reimbursement of fees and expenses. C&F denied Altman’s requests, Altman settled the claims without C&F’s involvement, and then Altman sued in the Southern District of Florida seeking a declaration that C&F owed it a duty to defend and indemnify.
 
The Southern District found the Chapter 558 process was not a “suit” under the policy. Therefore, the condominium’s notices did not trigger a duty to defend. So the Court entered summary judgment for C&F. Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2015). Altman appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that the Chapter 558 process is a “suit” because it is a “civil proceeding” or “proceeding,” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary and Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, or otherwise constitutes an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding.” The Eleventh Circuit certified the question above.
 
The Florida Supreme Court held that the Chapter 558 process is not a “civil proceeding” under the policy because it is a voluntary dispute resolution mechanism through which parties may resolve claims without filing suit. But it noted that C&F’s policies broadened the definition of “suit” to include “[a]ny other alternative dispute resolution proceeding” and that Black’s defines “alternative dispute resolution” as “[a] procedure for settling a dispute by means other than litigation.” It held that Chapter 558 falls within that definition and, in doing, noted that the Florida Legislature described Chapter 558 as “[a]n effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism” in section 558.001, Florida Statutes.
 
As a result, the Florida Supreme Court affirmatively answered the certified question, held that the Chapter 558 notice-and-repair process constitutes a “suit” under the C&F policy, and remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit recently reversed the Southern District’s grant of summary judgment in C&F’s favor, vacated the final judgment, and remanded the case to the Southern District for further proceedings. Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 15- 12816, 2018 WL 560523 (11th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018). Regardless of what happens on remand, Altman will have implications for all involved in construction disputes where CGL insurance is involved.

Originally published in Hillsborough County Bar Association Lawyer Magazine. 

©2026 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.