Louis C. Haskins, II v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 1 of 11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10411
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LOUIS C. HASKINS, II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01126-MCR-ZCB
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 2 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10411
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Haskins II appeals the district court’s grant of sum-
mary judgment in favor of USAA Casualty Insurance Company in
this dispute about insurance coverage for injuries he suffered in
September 2017 involving a tractor owned by Gary Buchanan. Af-
ter careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
I.
On September 30, 2017, Haskins went to watch Buchanan,
his longtime friend, bale hay at Buchanan’s rural property in Jay,
Florida. When Haskins arrived, Buchanan was finishing changing
the fuel filter on his 1970s John Deere tractor, which was hitched
to the hay baler. After Buchanan restarted the tractor, it unexpect-
edly “took off,” running over and injuring Buchanan and Haskins,
who were standing nearby.
Buchanan did not have insurance on the tractor, or a home-
owner’s insurance policy, so Haskins made a claim for benefits un-
der his own car insurance policy’s uninsured motorist (“UM”) cov-
erage. The gist of his position was that coverage existed under the
policy for injuries sustained due to a “vehicle used in the business
of farming or ranching,” and that the tractor was such a vehicle.
The insurer, USAA, denied the claim, and Haskins sued in state
court for a declaration of coverage, which USAA removed to fed-
eral district court.
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 3 of 11
23-10411 Opinion of the Court 3
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Among other arguments, USAA maintained that the phrase “vehi-
cle used in the business of farming or ranching” referred to the use
of the tractor in question. Haskins responded that the language can
reasonably be read to describe a type of vehicle, rather than a type
of activity, and that the activities for which he used the tractor qual-
ified as a farming business, in any case.
As to the tractor’s use, Buchanan testified that he used the
tractor to bale hay to feed the horses and cows he kept on his 150-
acre property. He did not use the tractor for any other purpose,
and he “wouldn’t have a tractor” “if [his] wife didn’t have horses.”
There is no evidence as to whether Buchanan ever sold the cattle
or horses or any offspring or farm products. Rather, Buchanan is a
dental technician who runs a dental lab adjacent to his home on the
property. He keeps around six cows to maintain an agricultural tax
exemption for part of the property.
The district court granted summary judgment to USAA.
The court reasoned that, under the policy, coverage was governed
by the use to which the vehicle was put at the time of the accident,
not by potential uses that “have no relevance to the accident in dis-
pute.” So even though tractors “can be used in the business of
farming,” the court stated, the undisputed evidence reflected that
Buchanan was baling hay for personal use, not as “part of an overall
farming business.” Haskins appeals.
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 4 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10411
II.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary
judgment, construing the evidence and drawing all reasonable in-
ferences in favor of the nonmovant—here, Haskins. Westchester
Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 48 F.4th 1298, 1301–02 (11th Cir.
2022); Am. Bankers Ins. Grp. v. United States, 408 F.3d 1328, 1331
(11th Cir. 2005). “To defeat summary judgment, a mere scintilla
of evidence supporting the opposing party’s position will not suf-
fice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reason-
ably find for that party.” Baxter v. Roberts, 54 F.4th 1241, 1253 (11th
Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). We review de novo the dis-
trict court’s interpretation of contract language. Southern-Owners
Ins. Co. v. Easdon Rhodes & Assocs. LLC, 872 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th
Cir. 2017).
III.
There is no dispute that this case is governed by Florida law.
Florida courts “construe insurance contracts according to their
plain language.” Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v. Macedo, 228 So. 3d 1111,
1113 (Fla. 2017). In doing so, “courts should read each policy as a
whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and
operative effect.” Washington Nat’l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman, 117 So.
3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). We may not
“rewrite contracts, add meaning that is not present or otherwise
reach results contrary to the intentions of the parties.” Saha v.
Aetna Cas. & Sure. Co., 427 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “If
the policy’s language is unambiguous, it governs—end of story.”
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 5 of 11
23-10411 Opinion of the Court 5
Shiloh Christian Ctr. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 65 F.4th 623, 627 (11th
Cir. 2023). But if the language is genuinely ambiguous—“if it is
susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, one providing cov-
erage and the other excluding coverage”—it “must be liberally con-
strued in favor of coverage and strictly against the insurer.”
Macedo, 228 So. 3d at 1113 (quotation marks omitted).
Two sections of Haskins’s USAA policy are relevant here.
Under “Part A – Liability Coverage,” USAA agreed to “pay com-
pensatory damages for [bodily injury] or [property damage] for
which any covered person becomes legally liable because of an
auto accident.” The policy provides various “Exclusions” to this
coverage, including the following:
B. We do not provide Liability Coverage for the
ownership, maintenance, or use of:
1. Any vehicle that is not your covered auto un-
less that vehicle is:
a. A four- or six-wheel land motor vehicle de-
signed for use on public roads;
b. A moving van for personal use;
c. A miscellaneous vehicle [defined as “a mo-
tor home; golf cart; snowmobile; all-terrain
vehicle; or dune buggy”]
d. A vehicle used in the business of farming or
ranching.
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 6 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10411
To condense this somewhat, the liability coverage excludes the
“ownership, maintenance, or use of . . . [a]ny vehicle that is not
your covered auto unless that vehicle is . . . used in the business of
farming or ranching.”
Under “Part C – Uninsured Motorists Coverage,” USAA
agreed to pay damages where a covered person is injured due to an
auto accident involving an “uninsured motor vehicle.” The term
“uninsured motor vehicle” expressly “does not include any vehicle
or equipment” that is “[d]esigned mainly for use off public roads
while not on public roads.”
Haskins agrees that UM coverage under Part C ordinarily
would not apply because the tractor was not on a public road or
designed for such use. But he maintains that, under Florida law,
UM coverage must mirror liability coverage, and that the accident
would be covered under Part A’s liability coverage. See, e.g., Amica
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Willis, 235 So. 3d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
(“UM coverage is intended to provide the reciprocal of liability cov-
erage.”). The district court reasoned that liability coverage did not
apply because the tractor was not “[a] vehicle used in the business
of farming or ranching.”
Haskins raises two issues on appeal. The first is an issue of
contract interpretation: whether the phrase “vehicle used in the
business of farming” refers to the type of vehicle, rather than the
activity for which the vehicle was used when the accident occurred.
The second, his fallback argument, is an issue of evidence: whether
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 7 of 11
23-10411 Opinion of the Court 7
the evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide that the tractor was
actually used in the business of farming.
A.
As to the first issue, Haskins argues that we should interpret
the exception for a “vehicle used in the business of farming” (the
“farming business exception”) consistent with what he asserts is the
interpretation of the other listed exceptions. See, e.g., Cheetham v.
S. Oak Ins. Co., 114 So. 3d 257, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (construing
an exception to an exclusionary provision consistently with other
exceptions). But his premise is incorrect. The other exceptions do
not all apply based on the type of vehicle. Notably, the second ex-
ception refers to the use of the vehicle in question, not just the type
of vehicle. That is, the same type of vehicle—a “moving van”—
would qualify “for personal use,” but not for business use.
Nor is the first exception comparable to the farming-busi-
ness exception, as Haskins contends. The first exception—“[a]
four- or six-wheel land motor vehicle designed for use on public
roads”—applies based on the use for which the vehicle was “de-
signed.” If that same language appeared in the farming business
exception, there’s no question it would cover a tractor, which is
designed for use in farming. But the farming business exception is
worded differently. It employs the term “used,” instead of “de-
signed for use.” That difference suggests our focus should not be
on the vehicle’s design features or capabilities, or how it is custom-
arily used, but rather how the vehicle was actually being “used”
when the incident occurred. See, e.g., Used, MERRIAM-WEBSTER,
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 8 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10411
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/used (last visited
Nov. 27, 2023) (defining “used” as “having been used before”).
What’s more, the exception ties that use to the “business” of farm-
ing, not just farming generally, which calls for a more contextual
approach based on actual use.
For these reasons, we reject Haskins’s contention that the
type of vehicle alone governs the application of the farming-busi-
ness exception.
B.
As to the second issue, the evidence does not support a rea-
sonable inference that Buchanan used the tractor in the “business”
of farming or ranching.
The policy does not define the term “business,” so “it should
be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and courts may look to
legal and non-legal dictionary definitions to determine such a
meaning.” Macedo, 228 So. 3d at 1113. The ordinary dictionary
meaning of “business” implies some kind of commercial activity
undertaken for profit. See, e.g., Business, MERRIAM-WEBSTER,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/business (last
visited Nov. 27, 2023) (defining “business” as “a usually commercial
or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood”); Busi-
ness, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (defining “business”
as “[a] commercial enterprise carried on for profit”).
In support of his claim that Buchanan was engaged in the
“business of farming,” Haskins relies primarily on the Florida ap-
pellate court’s decision in Saha. In that case, the plaintiff, who
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 9 of 11
23-10411 Opinion of the Court 9
made his living as a doctor, invested in a “small herd of cattle, ad-
mittedly as a tax shelter,” which the seller of the cattle originally
cared for. 427 So. 2d at 317. A few years later, the plaintiff pur-
chased a 22-acre tract of land and made improvements to the land
to care for the cattle himself, including “completely fencing the
property, excavating a 1½ acre deep pond, installing an irrigation
pump in the lake[,] and constructing a cattle chute.” He also added
“some horses and sheep.” Id.After a young child drowned in his pond, the doctor sought
a defense from his homeowner’s insurance policy in the resulting
civil suit. Id. at 317. His policy excluded coverage for bodily injury
“[a]rising out of business pursuits of the insured.” Id. The doctor
argued “that because no profit was produced, and because he made
his livelihood as a physician, not in raising cattle, he could not be
said to be engaged in a business pursuit.” Id. at 317–18. The appel-
late court rejected that argument, stating that the “absence of a
profit does not negate the existence of a ‘business pursuit.’” Id. at
318. The court noted that the plaintiff’s federal tax returns “re-
flect[ed] virtually no income from the cattle but substantial ex-
penses and depreciation, the difference serving as deductions on
[his] income tax return.” Id. And it concluded that the exclusion
applied because the cattle operation, though unprofitable, still con-
stituted “a continuous and comprehensive activity for financial
gain,” and was therefore a business pursuit. Id.Haskins maintains that, like the doctor in Saha, he was en-
gaged in the “business” of farming because he realized tax benefits
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 10 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 23-10411
from the farming activities for which used the tractor. He also
notes that, for Haskins to obtain the agricultural tax exemption un-
der Florida law, the county property appraiser was required to find
that his land was being used for “good faith commercial agricul-
tural” purposes. See Fla. Stat. § 193.461(3)(a), (b).
Haskins’s reliance on Saha, though similar in some respects,
is ultimately unavailing. Saha does not stand for the broad propo-
sition that any activity giving rise to a tax benefit constitutes a
“business” activity. Rather, the evidence in Saha reflected that the
doctor had made substantial investments in his land to care for the
cattle he owned in the two years preceding the injury giving rise to
the coverage dispute. See 427 So. 2d at 317. The doctor also ap-
pears to have derived some minimal income from his operation,
even if it was “virtually no[ne].” Id. at 318. That evidence is con-
sistent with pursuing a commercial enterprise.
No similar evidence was presented in this case, though. The
evidence reflects that Buchanan kept around six cows to maintain
a tax exemption for commercial agricultural use on part of his prop-
erty. Although the property appraiser granted the exemption,
there is no record evidence of the particular grounds for the exemp-
tion or of any kind of commercial farming activity connected with
the use of the tractor around the time of the accident. Buchanan
testified he did not grow or bale hay for any commercial purpose
and “wouldn’t have a tractor” “if [his] wife didn’t have horses.”
And as Haskins notes, there is no evidence that Buchanan ever sold
the cattle or horses or any offspring or farm products. Rather,
USCA11 Case: 23-10411 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 12/01/2023 Page: 11 of 11
23-10411 Opinion of the Court 11
Buchanan is a dental technician who runs a dental lab adjacent to
his home on the property. Accordingly, while a scintilla of evi-
dence supports Haskins’s position, we cannot say it was enough to
show that the jury could reasonably find that the tractor was “used
in the business of farming” within the ordinary meaning of that
phrase. See Baxter, 54 F.4th at 1253; Macedo, 228 So. 3d at 1113.
For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judg-
ment in favor of USAA. We decline to consider USAA’s alternative
ground for affirmance based on another exclusion to the liability
coverage.
AFFIRMED.