int'l marine research v. sanders marine tow, et al iicna summary judgement denied

8/8/2019 INT'L MARINE RESEARCH v. SANDERS MARINE TOW, et al IICNA Summary Judgement Denied

1/5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 05-61364-CIV-MARRA/SELTZERINTERNATIONAL MARINERESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC . ,a Flo ri da not for profit charity ,

Plaintiff ,vs .

SANDERS MARINE TOWING, INC .et al .,

Defendant .

F I L E D b y , D .C .

A U G 1 5 2 0 0 6CLARENCE MAUUOX

CLERK U.S . DIST . CT.S .D . OF FLA. FT. LAUD.

ORDERThis cause is before the Court upon Defendant Indemnity Insurance Company of Nort h

America's ("INA" "Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 23] . Plaintiff International

Marine Research Institute, Inc . ("IMRI" "Plaintiff") filed a response to the motion on May 8,2006 and Defendant INA filed its reply on May 15, 2006 . The matter is now ripe for review .

The discovery cut-off date in this case is September 25, 2006 and the deadline for filingsubstantive pre-trial motions is October 15, 2006. (Order Setting Trial Dates and DiscoveryDeadlines [DE 18] .) Nonetheless, on April 17, 2006, Defendant INA moved for summaryjudgment on Count V (Breach of Contract) of the Verified Complaint, the only claim lodgedagainst it by Plaintiff. (Verified Complaint at 72-83 .) According to the Verified Complaint,Defendant INA is engaged in the business of underwriting marine insurance and had issued apolicy to Plaintiff's vessel . (Verified Complaint at 17.) Co-defendant Royal InsuranceCompany was Plaintiff's insurance agent and/or broker (Verified Complaint at 20 .) After the

Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2006 Page


2/5

vessel sustained a loss on or about December 23, 2004, Defendant INA did not pay Plaintiff forthe loss sustained to its vessel . (Verified Complaint at 1 1 27-43, 73-81 . )

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant INA puts forth its statement of materialfacts not in dispute . Defendant INA states that it issued a policy that covered Plaintiff's vessel .The policy of insurance contained a Port Risk Endorsement which stated that "[w]arrantedinsured yacht(s) are confined to port, located at (as per submitted monthly reports) however, forthe purpose of vessel demonstration, service or maintenance, navigation is granted within atwenty (20) mile radius of the port risk locations ." (Exh. 1B attached to Def. Mot .) In addition,lines 143-44 of the Commercial Hull Policy states that "[a]ny deviation beyond the navigationlimits provided herein shall void this policy." (Exh . I B attached to Def. Mot . )

Additionally, Defendant INA highlights a monthly inventory report, submitted byPlaintiff's representative, covering the period of December 19, 2004 though January 19, 2005,that showed that Plaintiff's vessel had a "port risk physical location" of 404 Riberia, St .

Augustine, Florida . (Exh . IC attached to De Mot .) Despite that representation, according toDefendant INA, Plaintiff's vessel left that St . Augustine location and, on or about December 23,2004, Plaintiff's vessel began taking on water, eventually capsizing approximately 163 milesaway from St . Augustine, Florida and near Fort Pierce, Florida . '

Based on those facts, Defendant INA argues that the record is clear that Plaintiff's vesselwas beyond 20 miles from St . Augustine and that such an act constitutes a breach of an expressnavigational limit warranty in the insurance contract, thus releasing Defendant INA from an y

' The Court notes that Defendant INA does not provide a citation to the record for thi sfact .

2



3/5

liability . ( Def. Mot . at 3-5 .) Additionally, Defendant INA claims that even if Plaintiff advisedco-defendant Royal Marine Insurance Company, Inc . of its intention to take the vessel beyond 20radius miles from St . Augustine, knowledge of an insurance broker cannot be imputed to theinsurer . ( Def. Mot . at 5-6 .) In support of this later proposition , Defendant INA cites Lien Ho v .Klaus , 738 F .2d 1455 ( 9`" Cir . 1984) and Jefferson Ins . Co . of N .Y . v . Huggins , No. 3 :99-CV-1315-H, 2000 WL 1881201 ( N .D . Tex . July 10, 2000) .

In filing its response to Defendant INA's motion , Plaintiff specifically controvertsDefendant 1NA's representation that "[u]nbeknownst to INA , on or about December 17, 2004,the vessel [ ] left the marina in St . Augustine , Florida ." ( Def. Statement of Material Facts at 9 ;P 1 . Resp . at 4 .) In fact, Plaintiff states that "it is unclear whether [ ] Royal Mari ne InsuranceGroup , Inc . transmitted information regarding the [vessel ' s] movement from the St . Augustinearea prior to the loss as set fo rt h [by INA ] ." (P1 . Resp . at 4 .) Plaintiff argues that summaryjudgment should not be granted prior to providing the pa rties with an oppo rt unity to engage in

meaningful discovery . (Pl . Resp . at 4 .) According to Plaintiff , it is necessary for it to take thedepositions of representatives from both co-defendant Royal Marine Insurance Company, Inc .and Defendant INA because Plaintiff told co-defendant Royal Marine Insurance Company, Inc .that the vessel was being moved and "[i]t is unclear whether the information was relayed fromRoyal Marine Insurance Company, Inc . to [ ID A] conce rn ing the vessel[ ' s] [ ] southboundmovement in conformity with the policy terms ." (P 1 . Resp . at 5 .) In reply , Defendant INAcriticizes Plaintiff for failing to point to record evidence that a notice was sent by Plaintiff to co-defendant Royal Marine Insurance C ompany, Inc . or to Defendant INA .

The Court begins its analysis by noting that a non-moving pa rt y may move pursuant t o

3



4/5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) for a continuance to obtain fu rther evidence, whereadditional discove ry would enable the non-movant to carry its burden on summary judgment .See Fed . R . Civ . P . 56(f) ; Fitzpatrick v . Cityof Atlanta , 2 F .3d 1112 , 1116 n .3 (11`h Cir . 1993) .In ruling on summary judgment motions , the Eleventh Circuit has held that "summaryjudgmentmay only be decided upon an adequate record ." WSB-TV v . Lee, 842 F . 2d 1266, 1269 (11" C ir .1988). Moreover, "the opposing party does not need to file an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(f) inorder to invoke the protection of that rule because `the written representation by [the opposingpa rt y's] lawyer, an officer of the court, is in the spirit of Rule 56(f) under the circumstances . " 'Fernandez v . Bankers Nat'] Life Ins . Co . , 906 F .2d 559, 570 (11`h Cir . 1990) quoting Snook v .Trust C o . , 859 F.2d 865 , 871 (11`h Cir . 1988) .

The Cou rt finds that Plaintiff' s response memorandum constitutes a request for acontinuance in order that additional evidence may be obtained . Specifically, Plaintiff points outthat it has not had the oppo rtunity to engage in discove ry that may show that Defendant INA was

aware of the movement of Plaintiff's vessel . Although Defendant INA insists that notice to co-defendant Royal Marine Insurance Company, Inc . is not effective notice to Defendant INA, thecases relied upon by Defendant INA are not binding on this Cou rt . Indeed, Defendant INAprovides the C ou rt with a Ninth Circuit case that interprets Oregon law and an unpublisheddecision from the federal district cou rt in the No rthe rn District of Texas . (Def. Mot . at 5 ; Def.Reply at 2 .) Furthermore , Defendant INA fails to cite to record evidence that the vessel left St .Augustine and eventually capsized . Moreover , Plaintiff wishes to conduct discove ry in order toshow that notice was actually received by Defendant INA .

Defendant INA's failure to provide this Cou rt with binding case law or record citations i n

4



5/5

support of its motion as well as Plaintiff's need to develop an adequate record to meet its burdenas a non-moving party, compels this Court to conclude that, at the very least, Plaintiff should beafforded the opportunity to conduct adequate discovery . Cf. Snook, 859 F.2d at 870("[g]enerally summary judgment is inappropriate when the party opposing the motion has bee nunable to obtain responses to his discovery requests") . By doing so, the Court rejects DefendantINA's argument that Plaintiff's failure to supply record evidence, at this juncture, supports thegranting of summary judgment in its favor . Instead, by permitting discovery to go forward, theCourt will be assured that summary judgment is decided "upon an adequate record ." WSB-TV ,842 F .2d at 1269 .

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant INA's Motionfor Summary Judgment [DE 23] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . Defendant INA mayrenew its motion after adequate discovery has been completed .

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, thi s5'day of August 2006 .KENNETH A. MARRAUnited States District Judge

copies to :All counsel of record

5


int'l marine research v. sanders marine tow, et al iicna summary judgement denied

Documents