Robinson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
958 F.3d 1137 (2020)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
After Maggie and Cody Robinson (plaintiffs) moved into their home, they discovered an infestation of highly venomous brown-recluse spiders. Although they attempted to eradicate the spiders, the infestation persisted. The Robinsons obtained a homeowners’-insurance policy from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty) (defendant) that insured against the risk of direct physical loss to property but expressly excluded losses caused by “birds, vermin, rodents, or insects.” After the infestation persisted and caused extensive damage, the Robinsons filed a claim with Liberty, which it denied based on the policy’s exclusion. The Robinsons sued Liberty for breach of contract and bad-faith refusal to pay, alleging that the exclusion did not apply because brown-recluse spiders were neither insects nor vermin within the meaning of the policy. They claimed that the pervasive nature of the infestation rendered their home dangerous, irreparable, and unsafe for occupancy. The district court dismissed the Robinsons’ complaint, finding that brown-recluse spiders fell within both excluded categories under the ordinary meaning of the terms “insects” and “vermin.” The Robinsons appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pryor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

