Client Success: Eleventh Circuit Affirms StarStone National Insurance Co. Victory in Sublimit Coverage Case
Decision Preserves Ruling that Provided Insurers Much-Needed Clarity Regarding Judicial Interpretation of Sublimits of Liability
Press Release | 2 min read
Jun 22, 2020
Client StarStone National Insurance Co. (StarStone) recently secured a victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, when the court affirmed StarStone's 2019 summary judgment win in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. At issue was the application of an Excess Liability Policy with limits of $3 million liability per occurrence, which StarStone had issued to its insured, a hotel operator. The insured had sought coverage for liabilities arising out of the assault and murder of guests on its property. Hinshaw partner Rory Eric Jurman, along with Viviana Loshak and James Wyman, represented StarStone at trial and in the appeal.
As described in this account of the summary judgment order, coverage was excluded under the StarStone excess policy for claims that were subject to a sublimit of liability in the primary policy. In the primary policy in this case, assault or battery liability coverage was limited to $25,000. Hinshaw had argued that under the plain and ordinary definition of the term, this limit represented a sublimit of liability. The District Court agreed, finding that as a matter of law, the primary policy's assault or battery liability coverage was a sublimit of liability, and StarStone's excess liability policy did not provide coverage.
The Eleventh Circuit ruled the District Court correctly granted summary judgment, finding that “[t]he term ‘sublimit’ has been defined generally as a ‘limit on a subcategory’ … and more specifically as ‘a liability limit in an insurance policy for a particular risk (as loss of jewelry by theft) that is below the aggregate liability limit of the policy.” Therefore, it continued, "under the ordinary meaning of that term" the policy’s assault endorsement "qualifies as a sublimit because it caps the insurer’s exposure at an amount below the ordinary policy limit for a subcategory of loss."
In a Business Insurance story, Jurman said the ruling provided further clarity for insurers on the judicial interpretation of sublimit coverage:
“This is really the only leading case, surprisingly, in this area of the law dealing with a sublimit and what that actually means,” said Jurman, who added no other federal circuit court has ruled on this issue.
The case is Starstone National Insurance Company v. Polynesian Inn, LLC, d.b.a. Days Inn of Kissimmee, et al, No. 19-13769 (11th Cir. 2020)
Related People
Related Capabilities
Related Locations
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

