In the recent decision of StarStone National Insurance Company v. Golf Argonomics Supply & Handling Co., 2026 WL 245860 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2026), the Court granted StarStone’s motion for judgment on the pleadings ruling that a broader automobile exclusion in a follow form excess policy controlled over the automobile exclusion in the commercial liability policy, and as a result, the excess policy issued by StarStone did not provide coverage for an automobile accident.
Fact and Applicable Law Facts:
The action arises from an August 2020 motor vehicle accident involving Defendant, Amber Chafin (“Chafin”), and Mark Welker (“Mr. Welker”) who was operating a semi-truck that was carrying cargo on behalf of Defendant, Golf Argonomics Supply & Handling Co. (Golf Argonomics). Chafin was seriously injured in the accident and sued Mr. Welker, Golf Argonomics, and Golf Agronomics Sand & Hauling, Inc. (Sand & Hauling) in a state court action (the “Underlying Lawsuit”). Golf Argonomics and Sand & Hauling had three insurance policies issued by different insurers. The relevant policies include a general liability policy with Wilshire Insurance Company (Wilshire), and a follow form excess liability policy with StarStone, which was tied to Wilshire’s policy. Notably, StarStone’s excess policy afforded coverage to Golf Argonomics and Sand & Hauling in accordance with the same terms, definitions, conditions, limitations, and exclusions as those set forth in the “Followed Policy”—i.e., Wilshire’s policy—except where StarStone’s policy provided otherwise. Golf Argonomics, Sand & Hauling, and the other defendants settled the Underlying Lawsuit and agreed to the entry of final consent judgments. While the Underlying Lawsuit was pending, StarStone commenced the federal court action against Golf Argonomics and Sand & Hauling, and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the plain language of the Auto Liability Exclusion in StarStone’s excess policy did not cover the accident.
Under Florida law, the terms in an insurance contract “are given their plain and ordinary meaning and read in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people.” Penzer v. Transp. Inc. Co., 545 F.3d 1303, 1306 (11th Cir. 2008). When a clause in a policy is unambiguous, a court must interpret that clause “in accordance with the plain meaning of the language used so as to give effect to the policy as it was written.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR Inc., 889 So. 2d 779, 785 (Fla. 2004). A follow form policy provides coverage in conformance with the same terms, conditions, and exclusions as those set forth in the followed policy, except where specifically provided otherwise. See Desai v. Navigators Ins. Co., 400 F. Supp. 3d 1280, 1283 n.3 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
The Policies and the Court’s Decision:
StarStone issued a follow form excess policy that provided, in relevant part, that StarStone “will pay on behalf of the Insured the sums in excess of the total limits of … [Wilshire’s policy] that the Insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” StarStone’s excess policy also states that “except as otherwise provided by … [StarStone’s excess policy], the coverage follows the definitions, terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions of the [Wilshire policy].” StarStone’s excess policy and Wilshire’s policy contained automobile exclusions that differed in scope. Wilshire’s automobile exclusion denied coverage for “bodily injury … arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, or entrustment to others of any … ‘auto’ … owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured.” StarStone’s automobile exclusion, by contrast, stated that its excess “policy does not apply to any liability, damage, loss, cost or expense arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any auto.”
The court held that “since StarStone’s automobile exclusion is not the same as Wilshire’s automobile exclusion (i.e., it “provides otherwise”), StarStone’s automobile exclusion controls” and the excess policy did not provide coverage for the accident because its automobile exclusion excluded coverage from “any liability, damage, loss, cost, or expense arising out of the … use of any auto.” The Court also found that StarStone’s policy was unambiguous and the automobile exclusions in the two policies did not need to be read in conjunction given that the excess policy controlled.
Legal Implications:
This case underscores that a follow form excess policy does not automatically mirror the underlying policy where the excess policy “provides otherwise,” and that courts will enforce broader exclusions expressly set forth in the excess layer. The decision also confirms that a broader exclusion in a follow form policy does not render the policy ambiguous and even subtle differences between exclusions in a followed policy and a follow form excess policy can be outcome‑determinative, particularly where the excess policy employs expansive “arising out of” language.
