Dorning et al v. Essex Insurance Company et al

The plaintiffs, Jesse and Kelly Dorning, filed a lawsuit against multiple insurance companies, including Essex Insurance Company, in a dispute arising from underlying personal injury claims. The case involved a maritime accident where a guest on a vessel owned by the Dornings suffered injuries. The insurers denied coverage and refused to defend the Dornings in the underlying lawsuit, citing exclusions and definitions within the marine insurance policies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment compelling the insurers to provide a defense and indemnification, and asserted claims of bad faith against the insurers for their refusal to settle or defend the underlying claims.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, holding that they had no duty to defend or indemnify the Dornings because the policies did not provide coverage for the incident based on the specific factual circumstances and policy language. The court determined that the vessel did not qualify as an "insured location" under the policies and that clear exclusions barred coverage. Consequently, the bad faith claims were also dismissed.

The central dispute revolved around whether the insurance companies owed a duty to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs under the maritime insurance policies for injuries sustained aboard their vessel. The case examined the interpretation of policy definitions regarding "insured location," "watercraft," and applicable exclusions, specifically whether the insurers acted in bad faith by denying coverage and refusing to settle the underlying lawsuit.

The case serves as a significant precedent within the Eleventh Circuit for maritime insurance coverage disputes, reinforcing the strict construction of policy language regarding vessel ownership and designated insured locations. It highlights the critical importance for boat owners to thoroughly understand the territorial and operational limits of their liability insurance policies to avoid coverage gaps.