Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

April 02, 2020 | Blog Post| Duke v. Hoch Standard Survives Challenge in Eleventh Circuit

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Mandatory Insurer Intervention Rule in Cases Involving Covered and Uncovered Damages


In a recent decision, QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., Nos. 18-13926 and 19-13894, 2020 WL 1228648 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the insured failed to carry the burden of proving allocation of damages between covered and uncovered claims where the insurer advised the insured early and often of the need to obtain an allocated verdict.  The Eleventh Circuit’s decision reaffirmed the Duke v. Hoch1 standard, that notice to the insured of the need to obtain an allocated verdict is required for the insurer to avoid the burden of proving which portion of an unallocated jury award pertains to uncovered damages. 

The general rule under Florida law is that the party claiming insurance coverage has the initial burden to show that a settlement or judgment represents damages that fall within the coverage provisions of the insurance policy.2 An insured’s inability to allocate the amount of a judgment between covered and uncovered damages is generally fatal to its indemnification claim.3  Under Duke v. Hoch, the burden of allocating between covered and uncovered damages in a general jury verdict may be shifted to the insurer if the insurer did not adequately make known to the insured the availability and advisability of a special verdict and the divergence of interest between the insured and insurer springing from whether damages are or are not allocated.4 

In Scrap, the insured appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer with respect to the insurer’s indemnity obligation in an underlying nuisance action against the insured.  In defending under a reservation of rights, the insurer warned its insured of the need to obtain an allocated verdict as early as sixteen months before trial, and the insurer reiterated the warning four more times prior to trial.  In its letters to the insured, the insurer specifically told the insured it would need to request a special verdict, differentiating covered from uncovered damages, and that if the insured did not, the failure to seek allocation could result in forfeiture of coverage.  The insurer also unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in the underlying action twice for the purpose of assisting with the special interrogatory verdict forms.  

The insured failed to seek or secure an allocated verdict.  Counsel for the insured argued that the current legal framework can “trap” the insured and that submitting interrogatories regarding coverage issues creates a conflict of interest for defense counsel, who is paid by the insurer.  The insured’s counsel claimed that the Court should adopt as a rule the suggestion from Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Lavender, 506 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).  In that case, the court commended the insurer’s intervention in the initial trial to request a second verdict from the same jury, allocating damages if there were any.

The Scrap Court rejected the insured’s argument.  The Court observed that this was not a case where the insured was blindsided by late notice that it needed to present a special verdict form.  Instead, the insured was given ample time to accommodate the allocation request.  Further, although the insured’s defense counsel claimed a conflict and therefore refused to participate in discussions of intervention and special-verdict forms, the insured’s personal counsel had notice of the allocation requests.  Last, the Court noted that intervention rests with the discretion of the judge and that it would seem “manifestly unjust” for an insurer’s liability to depend on a decision that is out of its control.  However, the Court stated that “[t]he Wausau procedure, ultimately, may or may not be wise as an exception to Duke in some narrow circumstances—but those are not circumstances that apply here.”

The Court, relying on Duke v. Hoch, held that the burden of proving allocation rested with the insured because the insurer had advised the insured of the availability and advisability of a special verdict.  Accordingly, the Court found that the insured was not able to meet its burden of proving allocation, and it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

The Scrap case indicates that, in cases where an insurer defends an insured under a reservation of rights, the insurer should advise its insured early of the need to obtain a special verdict differentiating between facts or categories of damages upon which coverage may depend and of the divergence of interest between the insurer and the insured.  Ideally, an insurer would advise the insured of its need to allocate early enough so that discovery may be conducted in regard to whether the damages at issue fall inside or outside of coverage.  As trial approaches, it would also be prudent for the insurer to remind the insured regarding the need to obtain an allocated verdict.


1 Duke v. Hoch, 468 F.2d 973 (5th Cir. 1972).

2 Scrap Inc., 2020 WL 1228648, at *2 (citing U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So. 2d 1061, 1065 (Fla. 1983); Keller Indus., Inc. v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 429 So. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)).

3 Id. (citing Trovillion Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 WL 201678, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2014) (citing Keller, 429 So. 2d at 780)).

4 Hoch, 468 F.2d at 979-80).


Jessica Stillwell | ASSOCIATE

Construction and Third-Property Coverage

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

September 08, 2020 Blog PostDoes the Pollution Exclusion Bar Coverage for Injuries Arising out of Viruses and Bacteria?

In policies without a specific bacteria or virus exclusion, there is an arguable basis for insurers to rely on a pollution exclusion to exclude coverage for claims for bodily injury resulting from an occurrence involving bacteria or viral “contaminants...

Read More »
June 25, 2020 Blog PostButler's Thursday Tips | Little Black Box

Join us for this week's Thursday Tip as attorney Paola Solano discusses the use of ECMs in Third-Party vehicle claims.

Read More »
June 19, 2020 Blog PostIs Amazon a Seller? An Issue Primed for State Courts

The tide is turning as another federal court declares that Amazon is responsible for third-party products purchased on its website. On January 7, 2020, the Southern District of Texas in McMillian v. Amazon.com joined the Third Circuit court of Appeals and the Western District of Wisconsin in finding that Amazon can be a “seller” under the applicable state product liability statutes.

Read More »
June 01, 2020 Blog Post13 Ways That COVID-19 Will Change the Insurance Industry

Some people will have permanent complications from the Coronavirus , which will create a new population with pre-existing conditions. This may result in either more “eggshell Plaintiffs” or in an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition in an MVA...

Read More »
May 13, 2020 Blog PostIt's a Policy, Not a Payday Loan: The Voluntary Payments Provision Deconstructed

From time to time, the issue of whether an insurer has a duty to reimburse a payment made by an insured without the permission of the insurer is analyzed by a court.  A standard ISO form in a Commercial General Liability policy contains the following, or similar provision...

Read More »
May 06, 2020 Blog PostMembers Only: The Eleventh Circuit Restricts Membership to the "Illusory Coverage" Club to Narrow Set of Circumstances

The Doctrine of Illusory Coverage is a common law doctrine that Florida courts have confirmed is a part of Florida’s insurance law. See e.g., Zucker for BankUnited Financial Corp. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Co., 856 F.3d 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017)...

Read More »
February 28, 2020 Blog PostInformation or Indemnity: Do Certificates of Insurance Grant Insured Status?

Often, a person or entity that is attempting to claim additional insured status under the insurance policy of another will rely on a “Certificate of Insurance” that was issued by the named insured’s agent...

Read More »
February 26, 2019 Blog PostTHE MARKOVITS DECISION: CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Recently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that for purposes of determining the timeliness of a proposal for settlement, the complaint is considered served on the insurer when process is served upon the statutory agent, Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, and not when process is forwarded by the Chief Financial Officer to the insurer.  Markovits v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) rehr’g denied (Feb. 5, 2018).

Read More »
December 14, 2018 Blog PostDrone Accident Excluded Under CGL Policy's Aircraft Exclusion

In the most recent edition of our book, Butler on Drones, we reported that ISO has issued specific exclusions for unmanned aircraft for inclusion into CGL policies, but it was an open question whether a CGL policy’s standard aircraft exclusion already excluded coverage for liability arising from the use of a drone. A California federal district court has now weighed in on the question – the first to do so, as far as we are aware. And we like the answer.

Read More »
October 10, 2018 Blog PostRecent Federal Court Decision May Alter the Reservation of Rights Landscape in South Carolina

Only 15 months ago, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., the South Carolina Supreme Court fundamentally changed the reservation of rights landscape in South Carolina. Since Harleysville, two questions have remained: When must an insurer issue a reservation of rights letter to avoid waiving its rights, and what level of explanation is sufficient to avoid waiver?

Read More »
September 19, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence: Civil Authority and Ingress/Egress Coverage

The hurricane may trigger civil authority or ingress/egress coverage for businesses that are not directly damaged but lose income because they cannot access their operations for a period of time due to a governmental evacuation order.

Read More »
September 10, 2018 Blog PostHurricane Florence is aiming for the Carolinas

Once Hurricane Florence passes through the region, insurance professionals can expect a deluge of claims activity. While both North Carolina and South Carolina have felt the effects of recent Hurricanes Irene and Matthew, for example, many insurance professionals have limited familiarity with the particularized coverage issues which may arise in both states. Navigating the laws of both states, which can be both parallel and disparate, is going to be important in Florence’s aftermath.    

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 09, 2017 Blog PostTO FEE OR NOT TO FEE, THAT IS THE QUESTION: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FINDS COVERAGE FOR PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SANCTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER AN AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY IN MACEDO II

Due to its holding in Macedo II, the Florida Supreme Court created a situation where, arguably, many auto policies now provide coverage for attorney’s fees and expenses awarded against an insured following an adverse verdict triggering the penalties under a proposal for settlement.

Read More »
August 08, 2017 Blog PostHoly Harleysville! – The Rules Governing RORs, Intervention, and More in South Carolina Have Just Changed

For insurers, litigating third party coverage disputes in South Carolina has always proved formidable.  Insurers can be liable for “bad faith” even if there is no coverage; they may be required to pay an insured’s attorney’s fees if the insurer commences a coverage action against its insured and loses ; and extra-contractual claims may proceed simultaneously with a breach of contract claim.

Read More »
July 25, 2017 Blog PostThat Sinking Feeling: Sinkholes, Florida Law, and Some Questions Raised by The Recent Collapse in Land O' Lakes

The recent catastrophic ground cover collapse in Land O’Lakes attributed to a sinkhole highlights the unique aspects of Florida geology and the impact it can have on the risks faced by building owners and their insurers. In central and western Florida, the land generally consists of a layer of limestone topped by layers of clays and sands. The limestone is a vestige of the shells and skeletons of marine life deposited during prehistoric periods when that layer was at the bottom of shallow seas. Over time, limestone was formed and covered by layers of silts and sands. The limestone is slowly dissolved by groundwater, and constitutes part of the aquifer.

Read More »
March 07, 2017 Blog PostFederal Diversity Jurisdiction: Proving Citizenship of Limited Liability Companies

Jurisdiction gives a federal court the power to hear a case. Jurisdiction matters at the outset of a lawsuit. It matters during discovery. It even matters after summary judgment. Jurisdiction matters because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

Read More »
February 16, 2017 Blog PostSurplus Insurers, Too, Can Rely on the Application to Interpret Policy

Section 627.419 of the Florida Statutes provides that “[e]very insurance contract shall be construed according to the entirety of its terms and conditions as set forth in the policy and as amplified, extended, or modified by any application therefor or any rider or endorsement thereto.”  This statute has not applied to surplus lines insurers since the “Zota-fix” legislation of 2009, which generally exempted surplus lines insurers from Chapter 627.

Read More »
September 08, 2015 Blog PostNJ: Insurers Still On The Hook To Pay Innocent Parties Under Fraudulent Policies

The decision offers further guidance in the somewhat inconsistent world of rescission and automobile policy statutes, which – when accounting for the application misrepresentation, policy, and statutes – can be a tricky process.

Read More »
April 08, 2015 Blog PostFourth Circuit Sets Stage For Interpreting Contingent Business Interruption

CBI insurance provides coverage for loss of sales or revenue sustained when business is interrupted due to property damage that occurs away from the insured premises and, consequently, disrupts the flow of goods and services from/to a supplier or customer (referred to as the “dependent” or “contributing” properties). There are a limited number of cases discussing issues relating to CBI insurance; and the Fourth Circuit’s ruling provides greater clarity as to what constitutes a “direct” supplier, which is a common...

Read More »
April 06, 2015 Blog PostIt's a "Storm Surge" -- not a "Flood"!

Both parties cited to the SEACOR Holdings, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 2011) case. The SEACOR case held that flood limits did not apply to Hurricane Katrina-generated water damage. In the SEACOR policy, there were definitions for flood, windstorm and named windstorm. The definition of windstorm and named windstorm did not include the phrase “storm surge,” but the definition of flood included wind-driven water. The SEACOR court held that all damage caused by Katrina was the result of a named windstorm...

Read More »
September 26, 2014 Blog PostWhen It Comes to Sinkholes, Contracts, Statutes and Regulations Do Matter

On August 21, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Shelton v. Liberty Mutual, Case number 13-15371 / D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-02064-JSM-AEP. This decision confirms that the statutory definitions for structural damage under the May 17, 2011 amendments to the Florida sinkhole statutes apply to property policies issued after those amendments were enacted. The court’s order reversed the positions taken by the District Court that seemed bent on plotting a new course for Florida jurisprudence.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostThe Emperor's New Property Damage?

For many years, Florida courts appeared to say that general liability insurance policies did not cover a subcontractor’s faulty work that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. That all changed with the Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in United States Fire Insurance Company v. J.S.U.B., Inc., in 2007. In J.S.U.B. the court found that present GL policies covered the faulty work of a subcontractor that damaged other parts of a general contractor’s work. The reasoning used by the J.S.U.B. court to reach that conclusion would seem to also apply to claims for property damage to a subcontractor’s work that resulted from the subcontractor’s faulty work. However, courts applying Florida law have not yet found this to be so, and in fact say just the opposite.

Read More »

Key Points