Choice Of Law Key To Coverage For Third Party Beneficiaries
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: Property

The owner of a fire-damaged warehouse in Florida is battling in the Fifth Circuit to revive a claim alleging that a broker and insurer negligently failed to procure adequate insurance for the warehouse—by arguing that the lower court should have applied a different state’s law to its summary judgment determination. The warehouse owner leased the warehouse to a Florida-based produce distributor, which in turn procured a $5 million insurance policy from Alterra American Insurance Co. A fire later caused $10 million worth of damage to the warehouse, toward which Alterra paid the $5 million policy limit.

The warehouse owner then sued the broker and insurer, seeking to obtain the difference between the policy limit and the actual damage to the warehouse. But a Mississippi court dismissed the suit, finding that under Mississippi law, the owner lacked standing to sue because it was not a third-party beneficiary to the contract that the lessee executed with the broker to obtain insurance for the warehouse.

On appeal, the owner argues that Florida law, not Mississippi law, should apply. Under Florida law, the negligence claim could stand even if the owner was not a beneficiary to the insurance policy. The lower court had rejected the owner’s request that it conduct a choice-of-law analysis and apply Florida law to the case.

While it remains to be seen how the Fifth Circuit will rule, the case shows the importance of early analysis of what state’s law should apply to each potential claim—especially tort claims, such as negligence, which may not be determined by a policy’s choice-of-law provision. It may make the difference in whether a suit survives, and, ultimately, whether a loss is recovered.

The case is Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co. Inc. v. Alterra American Insurance Co. et al., case number 16-60471, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

  • Counsel

    Laura helps clients navigate through complex commercial disputes. She strives to help her clients find business solutions to brewing disputes before they evolve into litigation, but, if an issue does enter the court system, she ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 1 Minute Read

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

Time 5 Minute Read

Theft in the cargo industry has skyrocketed in recent years. In the first half of 2024, cargo thefts rose 49 percent and the average loss per shipment by 83 percent. Given these dramatic spikes in cargo theft, policyholders whose operations rely on the safe transportation and trade of cargo should take steps to mitigate against the potential losses of a cargo-theft event. We discuss below the insurance coverage options available to policyholders that can help protect against the risks and losses associated with cargo-related theft if such a loss occurs.

Time 4 Minute Read

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed victory for New York Marine and General Insurance Co. in its legal battle with Amber Heard over the cost of defending defamation claims brought against the actress by ex-husband, Johnny Depp. New York Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Heard, No. 23-3399 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2024). The decision, premised on Virginia law, rather than the policyholder’s favored California law, underscores the potential for choice of law to have case-dispositive implications.

Time 4 Minute Read

Last week, just before Hurricane Milton made landfall, Florida state officials issued an emergency decree to all licensed insurance adjusters in the state to protect homeowners against “unfair and deceptive acts” and “post-storm fraud” by insurance carriers. According to The Washington Post, the Florida Department of Financial Services is requiring that all claim adjusters provide an explanation for each change they make to a consumer’s loss estimate, document those changes, and retain all versions of the estimate and identify who made those revisions. When processing claims, adjusters must also use an electronic estimating system that provides an itemized report of all damage, as well as labor, materials, equipment and supplies. Those costs should be consistent with what a contractor or a repair company in that particular area would charge.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page