Ricardo White v. State Farm

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Ricardo White. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 10-14028

Date Filed: 09/11/2012

Page: 1 of 2

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-14028
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-01852-ODE
RICARDO WHITE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 11, 2012)
Before PRYOR and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and HOPKINS,* District
Judge.

PER CURIAM:
This case involves a dispute about the enforceability -- under Georgia law -*

Honorable Virginia Emerson Hopkins, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Alabama, sitting by designation.

Case: 10-14028

Date Filed: 09/11/2012

Page: 2 of 2

of an insurance policy’s requirement that lawsuits against the insurance company
be brought “within one year of the date of loss or damage.” The case returns to us
after we certified these two questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: (1) “Did
the Georgia Insurance Commissioner act within his legal authority when he
promulgated Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-20-.02, such that a multiple-line
insurance policy providing first-party insurance coverage for theft-related property
damage must be reformed to conform with the two-year limitation period provided
for in Georgia’s Standard Fire Policy, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-19-.01?” and
(2) “Is this action barred by the Policy’s one-year limitation period?” White v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 664 F.3d 860, 865 (11th Cir. 2011).1
The Supreme Court of Georgia advises us that the answer is “no” to the first
question, and “yes” to the second question. White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
728 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. 2012). In the light of these definite responses, we affirm the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm.
AFFIRMED.

1

The facts are set out in our initial opinion. See White, 664 F.3d at 862-63.
2