Danielle Lejeune, et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15832
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-21275-MGC
IGOR ANAPOLSKY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
DANIELLE LEJEUNE,
DIANE LEJEUNE,
JEAN-PIERRE LEJEUNE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 18, 2017)
Case: 16-15832 Date Filed: 12/18/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before HULL, BLACK and RESTANI,∗ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Danielle, Diane, and Jean-Pierre Lejeune appeal the jury verdict entered in
favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National
Union), in the Lejeunes’ action alleging (1) National Union breached its insurance
contract with Allied Mortgage and Financial Corporation (Allied), and (2) bad
faith for failure to defend Allied in the Lejeunes’ suit against Allied. The Lejeunes
contend the jury verdict should be overturned, arguing any contract between them
and Allied was not express because a repayment date—a required term of loan
agreements—was not explicitly stated and therefore National Union’s policy
exemption for actions based on express contracts does not apply. The Lejeunes
alternatively contend their actions for securities and tort claims did not “arise out”
of the contract between them and Allied, and therefore National Union’s express
contract exclusion does not apply to those claims.
After a thorough review of the record and having the benefit of oral
argument, we affirm the jury verdict in favor of National Union. See Parker v.
Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 386 F.3d 993, 1010 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating we
review a jury verdict only to determine “whether reasonable and impartial minds
could reach the conclusion the jury expressed in its verdict,” and as a result, the
∗ Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade,
sitting by designation.
Case: 16-15832 Date Filed: 12/18/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
“verdict must stand unless there is no substantial evidence to support it”
(quotations omitted)). The evidence submitted at trial from the 2007 and 2008
audited financial statements showed that loans at a 10.5% interest rate are for
three-year terms. Doug Jacobs testified the Lejeunes’ loans were covered in the
2007 and 2008 audited financial statements. [DE 157-34 at 14; DE 157-35 at 15;
DE 193 at 130-134]. The Lejeunes’ loan had a 10.5% interest rate, it commenced
in 2007, and the Lejeunes were informed three years later that principal would not
be paid. These facts combined with the jury’s disbelief of Diane Lejeune’s and
Jacobs’ testimony regarding the repayment date is sufficient for a reasonable juror
to have concluded the parties’ words were sufficient to form an express contract.
Additionally, all of the claims in the Lejeunes’ suit against Allied arise out
of the contract and are based on the allegation the Lejeunes loaned money to Allied
which was never repaid. Even though the Lejeunes attempt to explain how these
claims do not arise out of the contract, these claims would not exist without the
Lejeunes’ loans to Allied, which were the subject of the express contract. The
loans at issue fall squarely within the contract exclusion for claims that arise out of
any express contract.1
AFFIRMED.
1 The Lejeunes contend National Union’s failure to defend Allied allowed Allied to enter
into a Coblentz agreement with the Lejeunes, binding National Union to the terms of the
settlement agreement. As we affirm the jury’s verdict that the express contract exclusion applies,
we need not address this issue.
Case: 16-15832 Date Filed: 12/18/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --