green
Positive treatment
40.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MARK EUBANKS
(3×)
Co., 181 F3d 1210, 1216 (III)(D) (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Georgia law and holding “allegations of intentional sexual harassment, assault, battery, and negligent retention do not constitute an ‘occurrence,’ as defined by [the insurance policies, which] define occurrence as an accident, and do not cover the intentional conduct[.]”) (punctuation omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trisura Specialty Insurance Company v. Nyrsha, LLC
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Georgia law).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rogers v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Ed. 1188 (1938), a federal court hearing a diversity action must apply the controlling substantive law of the state and that the construction of insurance contracts is governed by substantive state law); SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Babwari v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Babwari v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1218 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the definition of the same term may vary between workers’ compensation and liability insurance under Georgia law); 5 Further, in the disclaimer letter, State Farm expressly reserved its ability to raise additional defenses not mentioned in the letter and clearly stated that the letter should not be construed as a waiver of other defenses.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
BARRS v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 7 See, e.g., [Doc. 27-1, p. 15 (“In the instant case, ‘property damage’ clearly includes the damages Mr. Barrs alleged in his Underlying Complaint which was resolved in good-faith by the Settlement Agreement and confirmed by this Court via Consent Judgment.”); (“Since the claims in the Underlying Complaint, that were subsequently affirmatively confirmed by this Court also involve claims for damage and loss of use of ‘tangible property,’ Mr. Barrs is entitled to coverage for his claims because it amounts to property damage under the Policy.”)]…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ulysses Anderson v. Great American Alliance Insurance Company
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999), certified question answered sub nom.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
IFCO Sytems North America, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1216-17 (11th Cir.1999) (applying Georgia law).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
IFCO Systems North America, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1216-17 (11th Cir.1999) (applying Georgia law and citing Presidential Hotel v. Canal Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. Matty
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Catholic Bishop of Spokane
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214-17 (11th Cir.1999) (holding, under Georgia law, that allegations of intentional sexual harassment, assault, battery against a manager, which form the basis for claims of negligent retention against the employer, are not “accidents” and therefore do no constitute an “occurrence,” as defined by an occurrence-based comprehensive general liability policy).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Companion Property & Casualty Insurance v. Mathis
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1213-17 (11th Cir.1999), we agree with Companion that the intentional conduct alleged in the underlying action does not fall within the definition of an “occurrence” as defined in the relevant insurance policies.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pope v. Gordon (In Re Camp)
See, e.g., MCI Worldcom Network Services v. Mastec, Inc., No. 03-13022, 370 F.3d 1074 , 2004 WL 1109880 (11th Cir. May 19, 2004); SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999); In re McClintock, 558 F.2d 732 (5th Cir.1977); John R.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. v. Mastec, Inc.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Mastec, Inc.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. v. Olin Corp.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir.1999) (citing Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Employers Mutual v. Fletcher Mallard
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mallard
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir.1999) (citing Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir.1999)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
King v. Dallas Fire Insurance Co.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir.1999); American Guar. & Liab.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hallum v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allstate Insurance v. Ginsberg
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Victor Ginsberg
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Victor Ginsberg
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Animal Urgent Care, Inc.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1218-19 (11th Cir.1999) (discussing reasons for treating phrase “arising out of and in the course of employment” differently for workers’ compensation and liability insurance purposes and recognizing that other jurisdictions have excluded coverage of sexual harassment claims under an “employee” exclusion, reasoning that such claims “necessarily ‘arise[] out of and in the course of employment’ ”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Employers Insurance v. Cesnik
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir.1999) (citing cases).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Employers Ins. v. Cesnik
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing cases).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Insurance
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sci Liquidating Corporation v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elian Gonzalez v. Janet Reno
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
HIH Marine Services v. Christopher Keith Roberts
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HIH Marine Services v. Christopher Keith Roberts
(2×)
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1212 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
I.D.G., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1999) (concluding that identical policy language referred “to an unexpected happening rather than one occurring through intention or design”); Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marietta v. CSX Transportation
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Marietta v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SCI Liquidating v. Hartford Fire
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
SCI Liquidating v. Hartford Fire
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Seawell v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company
Co. v. Mallard, 309 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (Citations omitted); see also SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Georgia law to contract interpretation in a diversity case).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vick v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company
Co. v. Mallard, 309 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (Citations omitted); see also SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 181 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Georgia law to contract interpretation in a diversity case).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SCI Liquidating
v.
Hartford Fire
v.
Hartford Fire
98-9069.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 20, 1999.
Published
SCI LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, f.k.a. Sunrise Carpet Industries, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee.
v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, a Connecticut Corporation, Defendants-Appellants,
No. 98-9069.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
June 20, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 97-00124-4-CV- HLM); Harold L. Murphy, Judge.
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, a Connecticut Corporation, Defendants-Appellants,
No. 98-9069.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
June 20, 2000.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 97-00124-4-CV- HLM); Harold L. Murphy, Judge.
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The facts in this case are set out in our prior opinion, in which we certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia on a controlling issue of law:
DOES SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR RETALIATION BY A SUPERVISOR TRIGGER EXCLUSION SIXTEEN ON PAGE THREE OF THE UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICY IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDES: "COVERAGE AFFORDED ANY OF [THE INSURED'S] EMPLOYEES TO 'BODILY INJURY' OR 'PERSONAL INJURY' ... TO OTHER EMPLOYEES ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT"?
SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir.1999). The Supreme Court
of Georgia responded, "we find that exclusion sixteen of the umbrella policy does not exclude coverage for Sunrise's claims originating from the sexual harassment suit." SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 526 S.E.2d 555, 556 (Ga.2000). In light of the Supreme Court of Georgia's response, we find that the district court correctly concluded that Plaintiff-Appellee SCI Liquidating Corporation ("SCI") was covered under the umbrella policy's "personal injury" provisions.
The district court found that SCI was covered under both the umbrella policy's "personal injury"
provisions and the commercial general liability policy's "bodily injury" provisions. We reaffirm our prior holding that the district court erred in finding coverage under the commercial general liability policy. See
SCI Liquidating Corp., 181 F.3d at 1217. Thus, we reverse the judgment for SCI against Defendant-
Appellant Hartford Fire Insurance Company.
Because we conclude that SCI was covered under the umbrella policy and because the amount of damages is not in dispute, we affirm the judgment for SCI against Defendant-Appellant Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company in the amount of $ 187,972.21, plus prejudgment interest, and $3,384 in costs.
REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.
[*2]