Manuel Grife v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. ( 2008 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-13318 JAN 10 2008
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-20160-CV-FAM
MANUEL GRIFE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(January 10, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Manuel Grife appeals the district court’s order granting judgment
on the pleadings to Allstate Floridian Insurance Company (“Allstate”) in this
putative class action. After review, we affirm.
Grife owns a unit at the Admiral’s Port Condominiums in North Miami
Beach, Florida. Grife has a homeowner’s insurance policy for his condominium
unit (his “owner’s policy”) with Allstate.
In October 2005, the Admiral’s Port Condominiums sustained damages to its
common property during Hurricane Wilma. The Admiral’s Port Condominium
Association (“Condominium Association”) has a separate master policy that
insures the common property, but carries a substantial deductible. Under the
Condominium Association’s master policy, $719,080 of the Hurricane Wilma
damage to the common property fell within the deductible. The Condominium
Association levied special assessments against the individual unit owners to cover
the damages not paid because of the substantial deductible. Grife’s personal
assessment was $1,226.56.
After the assessment, Grife filed a claim for the Condominium Association’s
$1,226.56 assessment under his personal owner’s policy. Pursuant to his owner’s
policy, Allstate agreed to “pay [Grife’s] share of any special assessments charged
against the condominium owners by the association” as a result of loss to the
condominium’s collectively owned property. This provision, entitled “Loss
2
Assessments,” also contains the following exclusion: “Any reduction or
elimination of payments for losses because of any deductible applying to the
insurance coverage of the association of building owners collectively is not
covered under this protection.” The district court referred to this exclusion in
Grife’s owner’s policy as the “Master Deductible” clause. Allstate denied Grife’s
claim, contending that an assessment resulting from the deductible in the
Condominium Association’s policy was excluded from loss assessment coverage
by the “Master Deductible” clause in Grife’s personal owner’s policy.
Grife filed this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleging that Allstate breached his personal owner’s policy and seeking monetary
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted Allstate’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c). Grife v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
The district court concluded that the plain language of the “Master Deductible”
clause in Grife’s personal owner’s policy excluded from coverage any loss
assessment due to the master policy’s deductible. Id. at 1253-54. Alternatively,
the district court agreed with Allstate’s argument that another clause in the loss
assessment provision, the excess coverage clause, also barred coverage. Id. at
1254-55.
3
After review and for the reasons stated by the district court in Section I of its
well-reasoned published decision, id. at 1253-54, we conclude that the plain
language of the “Master Deductible” clause in Grife’s owner’s policy excludes
coverage for any assessment due to losses that fell within the Condominium
Association’s master policy deductible.1 Because we agree with the district court
that this “conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim is excluded due to the Master Deductible
provision alone, renders a decision on the remaining Policy language at issue
unnecessary,” id. at 1254, we decline to address the district court’s discussion of
the effect of the excess coverage clause, which is dicta, in Section II of its
published decision.
AFFIRMED.
1
We review de novo a district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings. Hardy v.
Regions Mortgage, Inc., 449 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir. 2006).
4