Filing 44

ORDER granting 41 Motion for Reconsideration and granting summary judgment for Plaintiff. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 5/15/2017 (tlf).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, * * Plaintiff, * vs. * FORT BENNING FAMILY COMMUNITIES, LLC, JOHN CALE BROWN, SR., and DARLENA BROWN CASE NO. 4:15-CV-75-CDL * * Defendants. * O R D E R The outcome of this declaratory judgment action depends on whether Georgia or Maryland law applies. Under Georgia law, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company has no duty to provide coverage to Defendant Fort Benning Family Communities because the claimed injuries fall under the pollution exclusion in the policies. 426 (Ga. See Ga. Farm Bureau v. Smith, 784 S.E.2d 422, 2016). Under excluded from coverage. Maryland law, the injuries are not See Sullins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 667 A.2d 617, 624 (Md. 1995). On September 27, 2016, the Court denied Massachusetts Bay’s motion for summary judgment based on Georgia law, rejecting Georgia courts would Massachusetts apply determine which law applies. the Bay’s argument “presumption of that identity” the to Massachusetts Bay moves the Court to reconsider the September 27, 2016 Order (ECF No. 41) in light of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s March 6, 2017 decision in Coon v. The Medical Center, Inc., 797 S.E.2d 828 (Ga. 2017). In Coon, the Georgia Supreme Court expressly embraced the presumption of identity, finding that in the absence of a foreign statute on point, “at least with respect to a state where the common law is in force, a Georgia court will apply the common law as expounded by the courts of Communities Georgia.” concedes summary judgment Id. that at 834. Massachusetts (ECF No. 43). Fort Bay Benning is Family entitled to Defendants John and Darlena Brown have not responded to the motion for reconsideration and the time for doing so has passed. Based on the parties’ motions and the Coon decision, the Court grants Massachusetts Bay’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 41) and declares that: (1) Georgia law governs this action; and (2) under Georgia law, Massachusetts Bay has no duty to defend or underlying indemnify Fort action. The Benning Clerk is Family Communities instructed to in enter the final judgment in favor of Massachusetts Bay. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of May, 2017. S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?