[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 19-13690 ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-81270-RAR

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,

versus OCEAN REEF CHARTERS LLC,

Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________

(May 6, 2021) Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. JORDAN, Circuit Judge:

The Supreme Court held in Wilburn Boat Co. v. Firearm’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 316 (1955), that in the field of marine insurance state law should be applied USCA11 Case: 19-13690 Date Filed: 05/06/2021 Page: 2 of 22

where there is no established federal maritime rule governing the issue at hand. For over 60 years, Wilburn Boat has sown confusion with respect to the treatment of warranties in marine insurance policies. See, e.g., 2 Thomas Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 19:15 (6th ed. 2020) (asserting that Wilburn Boat has “caused endless mischief”); Gerard J. Mangone, United States Admiralty Law 247 (1997) (noting that Wilburn Boat “has since troubled many maritime lawyers”); I Alex L. Parks, The Law and Practice of Marine Insurance and Average 13 (1987) (“Wilburn [Boat] cast the law of marine insurance into a state of turmoil.”).

In this case the district court held on summary judgment that, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, federal maritime law requires strict compliance with captain and crew warranties in a marine insurance policy. And because Ocean Reef Charters breached those warranties, there was no coverage for the loss of its yacht under a policy issued by Travelers Property Casualty Company.

Doing our best to make sense of Wilburn Boat and its progeny, we reverse. We conclude that there is no entrenched maritime rule governing captain or crew warranties, and that as a result Florida law applies to determine the effect of Ocean Reef’s breaches.

I

2 USCA11 Case: 19-13690 Date Filed: 05/06/2021 Page: 3 of 22

As this is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, our review is plenary, and we view the facts in the light most favorable to Ocean Reef Charters. See Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 651 (2014).

A

This case concerns the demise of the M/Y My Lady, a 92-foot Hatteras yacht. Ocean Reef, the owner of the M/Y My Lady, insured it with Travelers for a one-year term from October of 2016 to October of 2017. The 2016-17 policy, a renewal of annual policies issued in the two prior years, contained two express warranties that are at issue in this case. First, the captain warranty required Ocean Reef to employ a full-time professional captain approved by Travelers: “It is warranted you employ a professional captain for the yacht . . . Such captain shall be full time and approved by us.” Second, the crew warranty required Ocean Reef to have one full- or part- time professional crew member onboard: “You [shall] employ 1 full time or part time professional crew for your yacht[.]”

Ocean Reef purchased the 2016-17 policy through its insurance agent, Keen Battle Mead & Company, located in Homestead, Florida. Travelers negotiated and issued the policy through its producing agent, Hull & Company