Florida Attorney Obtains Summary Judgment in Construction Site Coverage Dispute

Tampa Attorney Katherine L. Sloan obtained summary judgment on behalf of our insurance company client related to a coverage dispute filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

This action is the result of an insurance coverage dispute following a December 2019 construction site accident. In the underlying action, the general contractor’s employee was operating a Caterpillar Track Loader when he struck and ran over an employee of the subcontractor who was walking at the jobsite delivering concrete, resulting in serious injuries. The underlying lawsuit proceeded against the general contractor, who was the named insured under policies by both our client and Plaintiff, a Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability Insurance Carrier.

Following the accident, our client agreed to defend the insured general contractor under a reservation of rights but after investigation determined that there was no coverage for the general contractor under the policy issued by our client. The general contractor then tendered the claim to Plaintiff, who ultimately declined to participate in the defense of the mutual insured.

The general contractor subsequently entered into a Coblentz-style agreement with the injured subcontractor’s employee assigning its rights to pursue coverage under Plaintiff’s policy. The injured underlying plaintiff ultimately entered into a substantial settlement with Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s alleged breach of its policy obligations to the insured general contractor.

Plaintiff then sought recovery from our client under theories of equitable subrogation and equitable contribution, contending that our client was responsible for all or a substantial portion of the settlement Plaintiff paid.

Following extensive discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Regarding equitable subrogation, the Court concluded that Plaintiff could not seek reimbursement from our client because Plaintiff’s settlement payment resolved its own alleged breach of duties owed to the insured general contractor. The Court explained that a party cannot use equitable subrogation to recover payment of its own debt. The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s equitable contribution claim, finding no common obligation between the two insurers with respect to the breach-of-contract claim Plaintiff settled.

Additionally, the Court determined that even if coverage under our client’s policies were considered, none of the policies provided coverage for the underlying accident. Among other findings, the Court concluded that the commercial umbrella coverage had been canceled before the accident, the track loader constituted “mobile equipment” rather than a covered auto and that the injured employee qualified as a statutory employee for purposes of the commercial general liability (CGL) coverage analysis.

In September 2026, the Court granted our client’s motion for final summary judgment in its entirety, denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and directed entry of judgment in our client’s favor on both the equitable subrogation and equitable contribution claims. The Court ordered the case closed.

Katherine focuses her practice on general liability matters, primarily in the area of premises liability, coverage, and breach of contract matters. She has experience handling first- and third-party insurance defense claims, commercial disputes, trucking and transportation matters, product defect matters, and personal injury and wrongful death cases.