St. Paul Fire & Marine v. Sea Quest Intrnational

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 23, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-10239
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cv-00962-TBM
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,
llllllllllllllllll
Plaintiff -Counter Defendant - Appellee,
versus
SEA QUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Counter Claimant - Appellant,
TRIDENT SHIPWORKS, INC.,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(November 23, 2010)

-- 1 of 3 --

Before HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and COOKE, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Sea Quest International, Inc. (“Sea Quest”) appeals the
district court’s order dated December 17, 2009 granting summary judgment to St.
Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (“St. Paul”), Plaintiff-Appellee, and denying
Sea Quest’s motion for summary judgment. After oral argument and review, this
Court affirms the district court’s order concluding St. Paul has no liability to Sea
Quest under its marine general liability policy of insurance (No. 368FA0038) and
excess insurance policy (No. 368FA0046) issued by St. Paul to Defendant Trident
Shipworks, Inc. (“Trident”).
As to any alleged third-party claims Sea Quest argues on appeal that it has
brought under either of the builder’s risk insurance policies issued by St. Paul to
Trident (Nos. 368FA0280 and 368FA0172), we conclude that Sea Quest failed to
raise such claims in its counterclaim or in its motion for summary judgment filed
in the district court, and such third-party claims are therefore not properly before
us on appeal. In any event, we conclude such third-party claims under either of
the builder’s risk policies lack merit for a number of reasons, including but not
Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Judge for the Southern District of*
Florida, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

limited to the doctrine of res judicata, and the claims are foreclosed under Florida
law.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --