Fidelity And Deposit Company Of Maryland v. C.E. Hall Construction, Inc. et al

Filing 114

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, and against Defendants, C.E. Hall Construction, Inc., C.E Hall, Inc., and Charles E. Hall, in the total amount of $1,809,243.09 and to close the case. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/24/14. (wwp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY
OF MARYLAND,

1

r

I

2V

rx
-

Plaintiff,

N)

CASE NO. CV411-

I!,

c_fl

C.E. HALL CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
C. E. HALL, INC.; and
CHARLES E. HALL,
individually;

D

Defendants,

ORDER

On September 20, 2013, this Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Doc. 106.) In that
order, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an affidavit
outlining the total amount,

costs,

and any accrued interest

to which it believes it is entitled. (Id. at 1-2.) On
October 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed an affidavit requesting
judgment in the amount of $1,710,647.19, representing
$1,447,964.50 in principal and $262,682.69 in prejudgment
interest. ((Doc. 107, Attach. 1.) Defendants responded in
opposition, arguing that Plaintiff is not due prejudgment
interest or, in the alternative, that the prejudgment
interest should be reduced in accordance with when
Plaintiff made its demands for payment. (Doc. 108.)

::

Plaintiff filed a reply reducing the amount of judgment it
seeks based on the dates it first demanded each payment in
question. (Doc. 110.) Defendants then filed a second
response (Doc. 111), to which Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply
(Doc. 113). Defendants do not dispute the amount of
principal at issue in this case, but only whether and to
what amount any prejudgment interest is owed to Plaintiff.
First, Defendants argue that the parties' indemnity
agreement does not provide for prejudgment interest on
amounts paid out by Plaintiff that Defendants fail to
indemnify. (Doc. 108 at 2.) Because the agreement does
not address this situation specifically, Defendants contend
that the contract is ambiguous and thus, there is a
presumption against indemnity. (Doc. 108 at 2-3.)
However, Georgia law provides that "[a]il liquidated
demands, where by agreement or otherwise the sum to be paid
is fixed or certain, bear interest from the time the party
shall become liable and bound to pay them; if payable on
demand, they shall bear interest from the time of the
demand."

O.C.G.A. § 7-4-15. Such prejudgment interest is

mandatory, and is awarded by the Court as a matter of law.
Florida Int'l Indem. Co. v. Osgood, 233 Ga. App. 111, 113,
503 S.E.2d 371, 373 (1998) . Accordingly, the Court finds
Defendants' argument without merit.
2

Second, Defendants argue that if prejudgment interest
is owed, it should be calculated from the date Plaintiff
first made demand for reimbursement and supplied Defendants
with "vouchers or other evidence" of the amount owed.
(Doc. 108 at 4-5.) Defendants contend that prejudgment
interest should not accrue on a demand until all
contractual conditions of the indemnity agreement are
satisfied, and that such conditions include the
presentation of confirming documentation of the amount
owed. (Id.) The language in question states that
Defendants shall repay disbursements made in good faith
"and that the vouchers or other evidence of any such
payments made by [Plaintiff] shall be prima facie evidence
of the fact and amount of the liability to [Plaintiff] ."
(Doc. 38, Attach. 1 at 1.)
After reviewing the indemnity agreement in this case,
the Court does not arrive at the same conclusion as
Defendants. Rather, the agreement appears to allow, but
does not necessarily require, the presentation of vouchers
for an effective demand of payment. In addition, under
Georgia law the only prerequisite for an award of
prejudgment interest is a demand for it, with no further
limitation. See, e.g, Crisler v. Haugabook, 290 Ga. 863,
864, 725 S.E.2d 318, 319 (2012) . Accordingly, as requested
3

by Plaintiff, the Court will calculate judgment from the
date it filed its complaint—May 2, 2011—with regard to
payments made to Upright Builders, Inc. and Southside
Baptist Church. (Doc. 110 at 6.) Prejudgment interested
for payments made to Griffin Contracting and WTO of
Savannah, Inc. accrues from October 31, 2011 when Plaintiff
filed its partial motion for summary judgment. (Id.)
For the reasons stated above, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of Plaintiff, Fidelity & Deposit Company
of Maryland, and against Defendants, C.E Hall Construction,
Inc., C.B. Hall, Inc.; and Charles E. Hall, in the total
amount of $1,809,243.09. This amount represents
$1,447,964.40 in principal and $361,278.69 in prejudgment
interest through September 23, 2014, accruing at a rate of
seven percent annually. Plaintiffs have not requested any
payment for costs or attorney's fees. (Doc. 107, Attach. 1
¶ 10.) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment,
pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, consistent with the terms of this order, and to
close this case.
SO ORDERED this gfoLy of September 2014.

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.f
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4