Mark Chapman, et al. v. ACE American Insurance Company

This insurance coverage case arose as a result of the death of a ten-year-old boy receiving substance abuse services under Florida's comprehensive statutory scheme to address substance abuse. Chapter 397 of the Florida Statutes gives specific statutory rights to clients who, by definition, receive substance abuse treatment and requires insurance coverage for providers of treatment. A complaint explicitly alleged duty, breach, and damages under the statute. Because there had not been a Florida state court decision directly applicable to the effect of the statutory insurance-requirement provisions on issues relating to the duty to defend, Petitioners requested certification to the Florida Supreme Court. The Eleventh Circuit denied certification without providing any analysis or reason. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit abused its discretion by requiring allegations not contained in Chapter 397 and by denying petitioners' motion to certify diapositive questions of first impression to the Florida Supreme Court when resolving the duty to defend without guidance from the courts of Florida.

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit's decision reflected a clear misapprehension of summary judgement standards in precedent like Tolan, u. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), and violated Rule 56(c) by rejecting applicable facts.