Peter Halmos v. Insurance Company of North America

Case: 11-16128 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 11-16128
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-10084-STB
PETER HALMOS, Individually and on behalf
of other Insureds Under and Pursuant to
ACE-INA Insurance Contract,
INTERNATIONAL YACHTING CHARTERS, INC.,
HIGH PLAINS CAPITAL,
Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellants,
versus
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee,
STRICKLAND MARINE INSURANCE, INC.,
f.k.a. Strickland Marine Agency, Inc.
HARTFORD CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND,
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
__________________________
(April 5, 2013)
Case: 11-16128 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Page: 2 of 7
Before CARNES, COX, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, * Judge.
PER CURIAM:
After Insurance Company of North America (INA) paid over $24 million to
International Yachting Charters, Inc., High Plains Capital Corporation, and Peter
Halmos (collectively, the Plaintiffs) on various insurance claims, the Plaintiffs
sued INA for breach of contract, alleging that INA failed to pay claims for
expenses incurred that were covered under their insurance policies with INA.
Specifically, High Plains sought around $86,000 for damages related to its
motorized fishing vessel, M/V Mongoose; International Yachting sought over $15
million for damages related to its 158-foot sailing yacht, S/Y Legacy, and around
$60,000 for damages related to Island Runner, a tender to Legacy. After a three-
week bench trial, the magistrate judge entered judgment in favor of INA on all
claims. The Plaintiffs appeal.
We note at the outset that we need not address all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
Halmos asserted a claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against INA,
but we need not address these claims because Halmos does not challenge the
magistrate judge’s ruling in favor on INA on these claims. See Cooper v. Smith,
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by
designation.
2
Case: 11-16128 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Page: 3 of 7
89 F.3d 761, 763 n.2 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting that if a party does not challenge a
ruling on appeal, we will not address the ruling). Likewise, we need not address
International Yachting’s claim for damage to Legacy from an allision because
International Yachting does not challenge the magistrate judge’s ruling on that
claim. And, we need not address International Yachting’s claim for damage to
Island Runner; International Yachting only challenges the ruling that it breached
the policy by committing fraud. It does not challenge the ruling that its claimed
costs are not covered under the policy. International Yachting thus abandons any
argument that the Island Runner claim is covered by the policy.
We therefore only address whether the magistrate judge erred in entering
judgment in favor of INA on (A) High Plains’s claims relating to Mongoose and
(B) International Yachting’s claims relating to Legacy, and (C) whether the
magistrate judge erred in denying Plaintiffs’ “motion for a directed verdict.”
The Plaintiffs and INA agreed at oral argument that if we examined each of
the Plaintiffs’ claims and determined that the claim could be decided as a matter of
law, we could proceed without addressing the other arguments presented on
appeal. We accept the agreement of the parties and proceed accordingly. After
reviewing the record, we conclude that the Plaintiffs’ claims that we address fail as
3
Case: 11-16128 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Page: 4 of 7
a matter of law because the Plaintiffs have either failed to prove that their expenses
were reasonable and necessary or failed to prove their damages altogether.
A. Mongoose
High Plains claimed expenses under its INA policy for damages to
Mongoose. High Plains planned to present the testimony of Peter Halmos to
establish the reasonableness and necessity of the expenses. The magistrate judge
excluded Halmos’s testimony, concluding that he was not qualified. On appeal,
High Plains contends that the magistrate judge erred in not allowing Halmos to
testify as to reasonableness and necessity.
The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to this question, and because High
Plains concedes that Halmos is not an expert, we look to whether he was qualified
to testify under Federal Rule of Evidence 701.
Our decision in Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping
Co., 320 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2003), is instructive. There, we allowed witnesses to
testify about the reasonableness of repair charges because their testimony was
“based upon their particularized knowledge garnered from years of experience
within the field.” Id. at 1223. In this case, High Plains failed to establish that
Halmos’s planned testimony was based on his “particularized knowledge” of
salvaging vessels or protecting vessels from further damage. As a result, the
4
Case: 11-16128 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Page: 5 of 7
magistrate judge correctly ruled that Halmos could not testify as to whether the
expenses that High Plains incurred were reasonable and necessary. High Plains
agrees that it was required to prove the reasonableness and necessity of its
expenses for them to be recoverable under the policy. (See High Plains’s Br. at
47.) High Plains failed to prove that its expenses are recoverable.
B. Legacy
International Yachting claimed expenses related to (1) charges it incurred
after Legacy’s extraction from the sanctuary, (2) attorney’s fees incurred to
negotiate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to remove
Legacy from the sanctuary, and (3) remediation expenses to fix the area damaged
by Legacy’s grounding.
The post-extraction claim fails because International Yachting did not
establish the reasonableness and necessity of its expenses, which it agrees it was
required to do. (See International Yachting’s Br. at 79.) And because Halmos was
not qualified to testify as to these issues, International Yachting failed to present
any evidence establishing the reasonableness and necessity of its claimed post-
extraction expenses.
The attorney’s fees claim fails because International Yachting did not prove
its damages. It failed to point the magistrate judge to evidence supporting the
5
Case: 11-16128 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Page: 6 of 7
exact amount of attorney’s fees it claims it incurred. We have independently
reviewed the record, and we have looked to the evidence that International
Yachting cites in its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that it
submitted to the magistrate judge following trial. (See Dkt. 1414 at 43–44.) In
support of this claim, International Yachting cites to hundreds of pages of
unorganized receipts and a spreadsheet over 100 pages long purporting—although
unclearly—to memorialize all of International Yachting’s expenses from October
2005 to October 2010. This is not a sufficient method of proof. In our adversarial
system, the burden rests on the parties to present evidence in an ordered manner.
See Ondine Shipping Corp. v. Cataldo, 24 F.3d 353, 356 (1st Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is
the parties’ responsibility to marshal evidence and prove their points. Litigants
cannot expect the court to do their homework for them.”); Spectrofuge Corp. v.
Beckman Instruments, Inc., 575 F.2d 256, 270 n.47 (5th Cir. 1978) (“Federal courts
are sufficiently burdened as it is without having to spend hours finding and
organizing the parties’ evidence.”). The court will not—and should not—have to
sift through unorganized materials to determine damages.
The remediation claim fails for the same reason. International Yachting
points to hundreds of pages of disordered receipts and a spreadsheet over 100
pages long as proof of its damages. This is inadequate.
6
Case: 11-16128 Date Filed: 04/05/2013 Page: 7 of 7
C.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the magistrate judge erred in denying their
“motion for a directed verdict” on the grounds that INA had confessed coverage by
paying some of Plaintiffs’ claims. This argument is meritless.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in favor of INA.
AFFIRMED.
7