Ameris Bank v. Lexington Insurance Company

Filing 100

ORDER granting 46 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 92 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/21/17. (wwp) Modified on 9/22/2017 (wwp).

COURT FOR
TIIE IINITED S5IATES DISTRICT
DISTRICT
OF GEORGIA
THE SOIITI{ERN
SAVN{NAH DIVISION

IN

AMERfSBANK, as assignee of
rhF

l.6.ier;'

.^F^-r:t-

nenos i I

i ^h

r6^6

JnSu ranCe

ir/6f

Of

Co,.

Darby Bank and frusL
Pl-aintiff,

]

l

v.

CASENO, CV473-241

l
l

IEXINGTON INSURANCECOMPANI,
Defendant and Third-

U, S. DISTRICT
COURT
SouthernDistrictof GA
Fited In Office
C O A S T A LB I O F U E L S ] N C . ,
/

M

_2011_

Defendant.

Third-Party

ORDER

Lhe Courc

Before
Lnsurance
Coasta.l

Coastal
p

As

a'nl

a

tr.\r

Inc. ' s

t ha

Biofuels,

if f

D I R E C T E Dt o

fnl

and

92)
(Doc.

motion

l nq'rrenrc

is

cLose tnLs

Pla inti ff

46)

is

case.

rd-Dr

Defendant
for

Motions

rr\r

Summary
nafanr]rh,

GRiNiITEDnd Third-Party
a

a ' ^ l ' r r . A n \ / 'S

Pl aint iff

DISMISSED.

LexingLon

Third-Party

Thi

Third-Party

^ ^ m ^ r f ,i h f

Third-Party

l nwi

Inc,'s

T exi -crf on

result,

,'-nmn:nr,' c

(Doc.

Cornpany's

Biofuels,

r,rlj^manl-

are

The

mocion

iS

Lexing Lon
Clerk

of

DENIED,

Insurance
Court

is

BACKGROUND
facts

The material
This

a-a J nr-t-y a r r y / - D
!
\ \*t

.l rr5uLctrrLs

Fha

nI-Ja c U J Jd c
oa
y
LL

nf

T . rp 1 9i n c r Lr or n
v r
!u^ r x

d

h cq \
r r6 a \ zv /I

Ta

fn

-.rh'.
!o L!y

moor

n|^:-riFF
TIdITIL

:nd

t hi.:

r e nU r i
L LY r

A

^+

/r^

| ha

Lo:
Tha

au

rrl

nr

r tu r " : a aL
u rmoY

I

r-^-

'

r h i cL J

tnlhil.

ei\7

staLed

nnli.\/'e

i f

nnirl-

Pv+rr

: n-rt r
r'

e

rrnrlor

|

Fnrw^rd

ec:

rirrr

4?

^r

inl-crcsj-

fnp

i^

r^rill

fhF

/T'l

l

from

Iiqra.l

nnl

iLl any

ir:rr'q

shal-l

be

(Doc. 15, lx.

B

d,-ri

-].--

aa\nr_ri.-j-

whe-ehv
qrrr^r-ass'l
^

inSUre

LO

'-t^/lca

7a.l

nrnvi

i \
L.L / y

a.,i111-

fhe

Specif i ca-Lly, ltem

" Illoss.

nnl
Pvr

of

rp

-

t'lllncc

rh:r

r.ra

l-ar

rn

n- ^ f,
y a ,yro lF sr

a

+a

Tovinrrr.-.ln

as Defendant,

loaq6

2

q
i J

lha

and Coastal
lad

r-h
r

af

and Darby Bank as a

ro.-^.rni
.

r - ql e v r r q p
vt .e

narf

urh i r-h

K Rossiter. "

r n n r l -e ^ : /Y-v r a
Yq

:
nr'--h:ca
^.raFmpnr 1 ^ a a - +rI rrit n I.vr a - F
Af tar
!Ys
'
lg
1n.\r-

Lhat

Darby Bank, ALtn:

as Pfalntiff
2

n.a.ra

entered

rllrrchased

A?q)dqqT

16, Ex. B aL 1-2.)

and

clause

Cnasral

'ff

ni

n i f a!re v q
-e
f-/ !

As

'r-.'j-

ne\,'
r'*J

Biofuefs

f nr

a

as

yqY"

Pl ai

Coastal

2-)

named insured

r]orlrr:rinnc

nv

COasLa-I

Rank

hlrfrl-,ar

PU

n^^.

nalirrr'<

payable
1\

'

yv{tul

mortgage

:F

^nli^.UY
L{,

as the

Defendant Coastal

ar

DeFencl:nl

r\r.\nar
lr/
I'! vl-vL!.i/

R:nlr

DFferdant

Darbrr

ramant

| - . . . 1 I^1d fL^ -I ]
9 9

r (r.L L9c19

ifrr

LexingLon

Coastal

n a. hL r !
v: \e

T

-ed

L!r"'!rrL

LEZIIJ

I II

t.
!v

issrrtr.{

I i c ,v
e

Alf..h

-e.tti

idenl-

ro

lr

Defendant

rri r h

q)

ai r ^
u on ir < .

f:i

n r
y vo r

dispute'

Plainciff

Defenda-f

- 9 o on
o ^ . oL c- s L rt r2s r r u

1l-tnr-

r
/

2AA9,

October

dY, r ri n m a n r
cd u

F.rrr inmonr

i nqrtrence

Thi rrJ-Pa-trz

rI s^o- rcrit l g - ^

-^r^^-^n+
d9rss'LrsrrLf

l-ha

:n

to

('tCoastal" ) . r
rrrLU

/ \ \ T s ^ f i n l r y L . rt n / /
ow
iv r
\ !

in

not

are

Th L-rd-Party

from

sLems

case

case

this

of

1t
-tre

Io
or

lhi

.lef

s

irma-l

\nr^s

m.)fe

enclanf
COaStal
.o.r.n- elion
of
enrJ

D:rh\/
/lr

B;.nk

Aar-uaal-

Would
Che
.erfpct

Fl\/

own
lease
ed

mortgagee (s),

rne

On October
(Doc.

92,

filed

a

13,

Attach.
claim

engaged

via

an

I

at

proceeds

in

was

ulcimacely

the

disposing

Crame.r-to

Cramer spoke

(fd.

ar

paid

vaLue

of

ic

2-3.)

S1,145, 245.58,
of

due to

Darby

Based on Lhis

L o D ef e n d a n r

Coastaof

which

equipment.

the

possession

took

at

(Id. )

of

rhe

che Iack

equipment,
any salvage

of

(Id. )
the

time

of

Bank $507,269.00
42

at

the

under
3. )

I

at

3),

it

Defendant

fire,
the

terms

lthile

rep-Lacement equipment

wiLh
failed

n6€6-^.^i

payments under

the

COaSLaf

terms

of

of

Coastaf

the
to

the

.3

lease

agreement.
purchased

proceeds

(Doc.

Darby Bank that

(Doc. 42 at
COnL rnued

lease

Coastal

pol icy
notify

owed Darby

the

Defendant

equipment had been destroyed
Fima

Lexington

Curtis
Mr.

Coastal-

not possess any liens

"Darby did

Lexingcon

for

tnel-r

equipnrent.

Plaintiff

(ld. )

cIajm,

Lhe amount of

Lexingron

^F

(Id. )

the

Defendant

contracLor-Mr,

him that

Plainl itf

Attach.

as

an unknown and unnamed individuaf

Pl ainL j ff

$568, 000. 00

destroyed

response,

payments were current."

in formatj on,

(Doc,

fire

policy.

the

policy/

this

4?. )

In

DeFendant Coasta-I's

and all

At

at

a

2.)

independent

Bank who lnformed

value.

(Id.

2009,

on

phone wlth

por icy

schedu.led on

(s) may appea.r."

interest

adjust

as

Lo

3).
m^l,o

92,
the

Eor a period
r
_ .hr a

agreement.

a
!rc q.J, -. r r

ra^
, ss

(Doc. 92,

Aftach.

1

defaulted
-6:ca

Deposjt

of

wLth

(Id. )

cl

for

Lexington

lno.

R)

Le:rr r^of rn

j-he

^l-

1

\

was

liable

an..J Dcfen'Jant

and

(Id. )

fl: rl^'rr

COaStal

Seek

n ^ a e l- t-u , ] I-l-L
ue! ^ .d -

Coastal

/n^^

1 i' . 1
1
1

n . a r l .L

breach

Lo pay

rrrlinn

rha

hnrh

\

/)h

Amari<

Ps!

concfuded

R:^L

l-h:r

COUrc

removed

its

for

Bank

Plaintiff

Defendant

in

and

Lexington

and

Lhey faifed

nf

SUare

-^-i^-ts
d9d I rtsL

..L

Judgment

t,,_\

linhr

s 1332.

^--h-F.l

becalse

Tn

lhe

nr^.-aa.-lc

Sunnary

Ameris

Defendant

alleging

i

cr,rr inmenl

in

ar

nrrr-'rr

r^ryr'r rsn

20L3,

)

n v ,m' n lf : i nL f
t
-n r y

uJ

Fhi-

?nlq

Lnsurance concracr
6f

18 u. s.c.

fL . i-rrd un : r l r r
h ,yu,

I

(Id.

Purchase

a

jurisdiction

indqmnification,

Motion

Plaintiff

Ex.

L,

diversity

lha

30,

T . a wi - d l - ^ -

(Doc,

..)n\tor1-orJ

:nrl

FDIC

On Septenber

Court's

ri'an
!.1 r c\-{

Lhe

pl^i-1-ira

aoairsr

?(

Bank's

Federa]

rhe

into

for

conferhor

appointeo

and

Banking

enrered

case pursuanr to

l\r

Bank

DeparrmenL of

as receiver.

this

r^rrnnrrfttl

rral rre

Ehe Georgia

Darby

Chatham County.

Coastal

remaini-ng

("FDlC")

assets.

r ^ -^i ^ ^L -r ^ ^ L v t l
l rg
Ls

in

Bank subsequently

s rit

thls

$318, 448. 00

ultima tefy

)

A.ra^ma.t

invoked

with

Coascal

Corporation

Insurance

Aqqr-rnli..n

'iled

/r..i

cl osed

Aneris

Bank's

agreement

N o v e m b e r 2 0 1O ,

F inance

and

3.)

c

Defendanc

However,

the

on

nr\/marl-

fn

A.)

at

that

of

the

Lhe insured
rLrv! svsysc.

Dl.ihtifr

-1t.Jrlman- w:, h
S q rjt mrm nr \l , /
i uL a ,
J

respect

to

Pfaintif

f

T.av

/ <

i n.,'r 1-nn

crossclaim

for

indemni ficat ion .
its

In
!sr:-L'L9LUtr

from

Motion
^ - " r-oct
Lr

o-L9usr

Defendant

the

to

at

^-eS

nF

not

part,

its

iff

merit

because

Plainriff

any underlying

tortious

95

Also,

T.cwinnrnnt<

13-15.)

enrichment

is

relaLionshLp

-i

disputed

iLS

e

indcn-i

friuL-rL--tLl

conversion
I

that

rrL<lrrrLctfrL5

bal

of

nlrim

at

it

is

.rhaf

! e
r e ucv (v-e). \I /

In

entitled
/T/-l

tha

I

rrr' n lrrq n i . r L ? _ y
\a
v l

in

Frv

r',

of

5-B . )

anri^hmahr

,.-Fqa

l-hic

Lexinglon
action

inapplicable
rhe

insurance.

yrsrf

q\rs-

insurance

?lainf

parries

that

proceeds.

this

Iai-Led

argues
case

ro

lt -d- L . -! 5
rJ

Ly

i denLi fy
(Doc.

46

at

that

by

22-23. )

Georgra, s vo-luntary

-ev

at

f
_ _r n_m

15-21.)

unjust

because

v,ias governed

- s " \ l r ri n . r t . vL\J.^

(Id.

il uc L
r Ft ^ ^ -l - i l-t"t t

that

Defendant Coastal,

Coastaf
in

i ' F!
-

has

by

(Doc.

maintains

o \ l'u i! tL- a L r l - . 1 ^
r
s^ ,
rc

Defendant

between

Coastal

fnr

Defendant. Coasta-l contends
n^^'

Attach.

rrnirrct

Defendant

Plrint

contract

92,

Plalntiff

aott'lrh

wrongful

reasons

^.-r*-!^us^f
r Lvrr

rin^

U
tLo

based on the
(Doc.

Judgment,

8-12. )

For

at

L :
e n t i L L e td L l
(:llL_LL

r hpnrrr

pl.rinr:ff

^^^r

is

Lex ington

under

finalI'r

Summary

t5

proceeds .

Plaintiff

refief

(Id.

iL
lL

Coastal

insurance

addition,

for

rar-nrrcri

a

the
valid

Finally,
payment
nn

rh-

ANAIYSIS

r.

S UMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

According
m-iro

f nr

qnmmar\r

!

the

\n

of

iq

Llrc

. la r v ."
j-ho

nl

5 14 ,

Id.

h^1

ac

existence

of

The substantive
an eLement is

A<

Co.,
j-ha

rn

(quotlng

Eed.

mnql

' rr!

m

which

ha

JTTJLU

uf

nr:nFa.]

uJ

LJ

judgment as

s u m n ar y

of

j udgment is

:cq6eq

R.

:i

may

to

enrirled

Zenith

r ha

nrnnf

i n

f a-

neeci

f-ria)

Radio Corp.,
P.

Civ.

nrdar

.'

"

475 U.S.

55

advisory

\

a

is

showinq

corp.

will

v.

sufficient

he:r

catrett,

faw govelning
essential

when

appropriate

an efement essential

cefotex

Abrasive

:nri

r]

defense-on

gL-ru

Co. v.

---*\/
Pa L L_l

triaL"

rrv

inrrs

oa^h

mnl-i.\n

flenlr i -e

make

to

e

The "purpose

Summary judgnent
"fails

Srrr-h

"

party

" Ia]

nn

of

is

(1985)

| a^

claj-m

Indus.

Efec.

a |

each

i f rr

there

Matsushita

. /'\hn

i danr

-r'q-

oed

whether

587

56 (a) ,

P.

and rhe movanL is

facr

of

iorr-r.

see

Civ.

qnrrnhl-

Drr\JwJ

a marcer

to

nart

irr.i.rmant

any maLeriaf

f .')

R.

irrdnmonr

clefense-or

r

Eed.

to

the

to

to

417 u.s.

De],ong Equip.

f-.'\rrrr

6vnl:inpd.

a(

317,

case,
nrnnf

Co.

v.

the
and
:t

322 (7986).

determines

887 F.2d 1-499, 1505 (11th Cir.

Srrnramo

establ-ish

hrtr.lon

action

nonmovanL

partyrs

that

lha

the

whether

Wash. Miffs

1989)

lAl
Lnl
j- htr

dlstrict

court

i '-lanti

f rzinn

rlanoqif

of

ionq

on

nonmovanr to

+1..^
Llre

at

l l O I L I I L (v q I I L
)

issue

F.2d 604, 608 (1lth
The Court
factual
favorabfe

there

facts. "
cimnl

r'

anncl

1989)

I ^-^!.l

rs9d

than

v.

should

mere
^*

^

L_LUrr5,

the
thal:

materiaf

to
929

883

mnr^

doubt

-hrh

as

w_Lf _L

not

to
of

suffice

reasonab-Le fac t

F.2d

at

587-88.

,
si -r^t rr,L P r y

the

most

-t

u,
5 r t ^ .w

materiaf

evidence,

or

qaa

L422, rA25 (11th Cir.

135 F.3d

to

reasonabfe
Light

the

475 U.S,

"scinti11a,.

inference

refuse

Brierton.

are

and all
in

An

€ -^-

genu.ine issue

a

it

$m1rct

\r

where

one

to

Inc

evidence

from

Prods. ,

creates

Court

Barfiefd

l

shifts

Coats

Mei-qrrchi1:

hrrl

A

Neverthe-less,

inference
the

ar

Carter

more

"draw

-

'cn^r

v.

the

nonm.r/:nl

586.

befieves
issue of

then

that

facts

some metaphysical
at

,l-.^

1991)

arlsing

nnnmarr:n,,_r

is

ld.

Tldwell
1998) .

the

-ha

H / ' \ \ ^ ) . a \ / ar

that

to

rnri

beyond rhe pleadings,

as to

must review

inferences

I,lgqurtlYJ,

'.'itL

The burden

C.Lark v.

Cir.

and

nlo:r'linac

i n I o r r .,^ ^ r ^ r i a c

by going

(jdSe.

S

motion,

l-h6

ru^v^9 s L la r L
arh rs

323.

escabfish,

a genuine

is

aF

any,
which
it
absence of a genuine

demonstrate the
mater.ial fact .
411 U.S.

r rr

its

for

r'r-rnc

g+vll'

f ile,

Lr

arrr(ldv]LS,

y

basis

nnrf
yv!

anql^rorq

^ffll---.lr^

Cefotex,

the

i-h^qc

admissions

there

- 1 -\'^
h r c c-trL '>
ct_Lwdy5
r^
I uuglrlsllL
I i rr.'
nf
i
r
i-he
rir ,n f ' n rrm ' + , r --rY
r,
v

ri^ rlu)"
- v
a ! u ^L ' r y n a
cr'*-Jaa r i
|Jui n il- i:1
rcqnr-\nqi
hi

+ l^ ^

of

grant
923,

IALLJ,

material
sunmary
933-34

f i nrlar

and
fact,

that.
then

i rr.l.rm6nt

(llth

Cir.

"

EQUITABLE INDEMNITY

I]

,1

ln
it

where

a parLy

Georgia,'
has

commitl-ed by

pay

Lo

to

as

Iitl

another."

f rnm

Irl

narmi

l-e

iL -r rhv a

\\r-ho

n . a rr l rL;l ,

a
v.

AMEC

1T3,

1\6,

141

of At.Lanta v.

I irhla

urnnn

hae

rhie

another. "

l-hr,<

imnrrrad

haan

tort

Benator,

r-nmnonqar

imnrrl- ..l

i<

I i . eh i I i r r r

Emergency Prof'fs

rh:i-

l-^

ion

'/

h im

oar rir:hla

: r i c i n n

of

Al 5,654

S.E.2d

434,

Auto-owners

Ins.

Co. v.

T.,.m

Atfanta,

413,

(ciring

(emphasis added)

qaFl

i.\

hnr^rarror

288 Ga. App.

Watson,

hr c+lqd
r !

I/e

\\nant-amnl:toc

of

torts

of
Inq.

322 Ga. App.

Inc.,

u,hnea

Tmh^rl-.ht-

indomniirr

result

of

597, 608-09,'?14 s.E.2d 109, 118 (201'])). rhis

310 Ga.App.
),

"damages because

the

S.E.2d 10, 13 (2013) (quoting City

tLh r6 v ! r \ /
^
r s

equj cable indemnity

Owners Ass'n,

Dlst.

& Infrastructure,

Envtl.

enLiu.led to

required

been

lmputed

negligence

is

rha

P.C.
436

v.

12001
)

Anderson,

252 Ga. App. 361, 363, 5s6 S.E.2d 46s (2001)).
fn

irs

I.c*i nritnn

Defendant
proceeds.
even

to

nn- v

nassi

rral,cq

Coastaf
(Doc.

'r-^

Thp

[or

92,

hicrl- l'ohf crj rh jS

':4.1

r

Motion

n.arl

this

ia<

case.

rslJly'

dn

n^f

Sunvnary
-ef ernnre

nfl

wrongfuffy
ALtach.

I

aL

(Doc. 46 at

14.)

7-8. )

-Ln iLs

ptai.rf iff

cnrri. F

to

lhe

converted

omisSi on

.li

Judgement,

Ih:j-

notion

the

Gpcrrcia

thaL

insurance

Defendant

Coastal

'l^.

95 e-

reqn^-qtr

Texin.rr on

Plaintiff

f a.iled

srill

I-',

i

r^-h'^

to

oFcpr

a-v

:cfnal

leoal

acLions

constiLuted

simple

jpse

^.\n\16ri

ad

rhac

to pay for

-ha

he

..'-)rrar-A.l

property;

n r , - \ n e r i - e j/ .
\

(4)

and

App.453,454,

S. E.2d
has

44,

issue

policy
n-nne-l

not

to

in

Lhat

this

has

Coastal

o.[ the

.in

nn

i ssue,

'he

fr.l ir^len'i'v

the tort

G a.

lhe

in

record

nol i.:rr-

cl ea r

jury

return

819,

I/ihile

is

av Ldence

co fjnd

of conversion-

the

the

Johnson
823,

561

Lexington
it

that

property.
from

the

213 Ga,

fnc.,

Pfaintiff

satisfacrion

anv

OI

(quoting

App.

proceeds

whaL is

a reasonable

(2005)

converted

were

to

must
of

fetufn

Servs.,

case,

this

evidence

n-aim

fa'le.l

conmitted

255

disLr-buted

the

Lhat would permic

In

case

were

v-navaL)l c

deciding

'exi-o-on

no

possession

tc

Bank,

(2002) ) .

48

L22

I2A,

CauSed

possessed

actual ly

refused

Fj n ,

Americredit

615 S.E.2d

noi nted

enriLled
at

,,

defendant

and

a plaintiff

'lam:1ded

hc

f

possession

to

defendant

/?)

I

the

Unr-on Nat' f

First

the

itsel

the

"wrongful ly

Coasta-L

converslon,

entitled

(2)

t,LvtzvL

v6f ?^^r

v.

was

on]y

(Doc, 91 at 2.)

twice,"

for

Coascal's

offering

f r-,.

t / ! V v v v l l g

one loss

propertyi

converted

instead

-\-.1^AAde

a claim

(1)

that

Defendanr

DefendanL

r nqlr-46^o1

To estabfish
show

Lhar

convers ion,

S]fI

lrl^c

Lexington

a-orinerf.

an
of
Lhe

rha L
in

rhat

was

The funds
insurance
a

valid,

Court

is

Plaint j f t
the

record

Defendant

I
l

l
Jn

equitable

addition,
h:e

}-".!ly"l

hoon

recrr

necrl i oenr:e imnuted

to

F Jr ,
L,

(quocjng

aL 13
at

ni JL.u- cl

"

118).

him

BenaLor,

Ln this

ir.l.ryF'rl

nn lv

r'l-:rim)

Dl^inj-

I

wif
i F{

lJg.LcrrLrdtlL

n r ^ ^ a rs !
Pr wP

r-ha

i ncrrrrnaa

for

basis

Moreover,
arn

Pra'nt

hc

Irom
hriafe

pd

f.r

:

:qqrrm

r9q."vrr,J,

x--

it

..^,,r-r

iL

Defendant
rra

a rcltnenl-s.

lrz

'-vi
lrc^lrry

L r

ha.r

Da-hrz

nr

hrc:r^h

T.Fvi

-i'-1.,
r-LrrrlJ-Ly

€-i
r o

Coasta] .

r^zrmnlaf

alrr

darrni

IlnSUrnr

isi -rrl rr

held

n.rf

rhc

case.

irrf,.rmad

lien

a

nf

negligence

aa- -a Y ' l r r
c
rr

fl^rq

10

enrr

nrnnarl

vrvv!

t-a
Lv

LO

lndeed,
af

.\n

l^^
r reLr

entiCled

d

this

how rhis
n ,l
v

F-,.

Poy

on

Lhe

8. )

i f f

is

|-U

formod

" h- nW ,

P:nk

_^

c

I i danl

UrJdJtd-Lr

adirrqred

r-i-^^

r t,

!L5ul

o

surnmary
concracL

of

nonlincnf

Lo

contracL.,

Bank

breach

co understand

(Doc. 46 at

c

of

damages to Ameris Bank in

fhaf

Pl:i

uJ

an\/

l-^t--

i nrT

h:rra

1lr'ln+i'r
r-La-LrrLr

/

obligarion

Ameris

m:rz

714 S.E.2d

608-09f

Lexingt.on's

il c

= ru
a rn r l/

Iails

Texin.tlo-

F-\/^n

-l-r-

rhe Court

141 S.E.2d

f ri

nnf

award of

the

properLy.

insured

rha<o

tI/-.'^_'^*

larrFomanr

im f rrl
r r . rn J J L l e

iff

ntrim -'.

n ^ r i \ /L y !
Po-

cornmitted

based on breach

nr-rl-^n

nf

a tort

of

(granting

82

har-rrrqc

322 Ga. App. at

"r,
l

"15
1 ^ ^ f5

Bank is

lavi

resuft

the

rpqna.^i-

h

\-uaJuar

tL -a s
h r

as

where

applicable

\'r]:m:aoe

l--

PIaj nt-if f

(Doc.

negfigence.

not

is

310 Ga. App. at

case,

pay damages Lo Ameris

indemnicy

irod

n-' /- w-i -l - : ! 5
\ - i

: Lru
an n t -L - hc rr.
- a

I
I

fi r lJa n - - t s-r

e,-] i-^h

PIainL i f f
Ion:l

t.-.\'rrt, S
-

L r lz
-

'

if

rr
.)/

p

L

: n r lr /
q,

aa J L
v>ca

jL n vrLJLei n r t , j r r r
'r
' i r4c

J,exington's

<rrnnnr1-

reVieW

;drr:nr-ad

|ar

faiIed

ir

e

IO

'l.1-^to

.r-\,r

entitLed

F^-

-hcqe

A lf

'

sunmary

to

.:l a i'n

Tex'r'll.n/s

'nI

-lrm^-F

6.rrri

Ilnirrsl-

r.,hara

anrir-hmonr

nna

h:rl-

^hsence
-arai

of

rri na

l^/:il.

r -. ] - \ l o

raqnect

i ndamni

CoaStal

is

plaintiff

to

f rz

6 5 1/

Inquiry,

LLC,

Caa
Y"'-**

r:^

'tWhere there
L:caul

is

,rnr"\n

Inc.
76I

ioq

v.

insurance.

D'arrfi!-

Civen

T,ev,notnn.c

:

inn

Faffon,

430,

Capital

8 5 1,

S.E.2d

where
l-h

n.|^

403,

chere
'/

of

none

U

rhonrrr

(2014)

863

Ins.

theory

722 S.E.2d

Corp,,

r -h : l -

Harris

the

tlarI

onri.hmonf

Ihe

Fnr

43I ,667

contracL,

r-ha

299 Ga. App.

(quoting

amr\r

687,

i r

Chat

COntraCL

^f

683,

Butfer

401

can be
M:rrrin

328 Ga. App.

(quotrng

Han v.

6'10 S.E.2d 842, 845 (2008)).

r ha

lo:r1..r

Ino- V

an,rn1'r<i

S.E.2d

r hic

App.

an express

Han, 295 Ga. App. L, 4,
Tn

v.

:nnliaq

demandS

aamnone:r

nan'F

App.

313 ca.

ih^r

^n/1ihar

circumstances,

Under these

aw ict- or'{

.rr'\

i r

(2009)

665

Fn

rema.l\/

oa rr t-rz

Farms, 293 ca.

'.ro-l,s

i-t-rr:IIrr

322-23,

hanaf

Se.rvs., Inc.

S.E.2d

^h-^-r

Hewatt Enters.,

r

nrnrri.ia

(2008)).

^--i

crrrrii-,'1hla

:-r.r

\/

2AA, 2AI

3I1 ,

dad

r.onrr:/-l-

Tarene

(2012).

an

nrnrri

h^c

Agency v.

,.h;,,er

iq

Wachovia fns,

449,682

44A,

v

arv
nrrt

benefit.

of

DefendanL

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

]]I.

n:lrt

re,aqonq

riryhre

dcfined

:nd

>nA

aarrarnor]

Lhe presence of
---.-.F

a-ri^L-^--

11

nhlin:,

Lhis

innc

hrr

rha

express
Claims

nl

l ^ , ^I h

nnnrr:nl-

contract,
mUSt

faiI.

Onr-e

nr n
r v

:rr:i

l en
r e a o r:

pl ^i

n

l

elrnJ ,'J u } J I nv r L \

statements

f ! !r
-

il

--

fLD

^

^^-r

Fq

r ae-. o z . lJV
,
. eu

/-\f

u/r^n.tdni

,in :ust

en-ir-l-r'renl

Coastaf

nrr

F-r

do

ia

the

t hrn

^f f ,,-\ .l
r,

respecL

lho

Lo

nj a_n L !ro:_
! ! ro

T.avi

its

of

any

legal

pl A inl

^^^;tal

^n.l

retained
t-h.l-

amount

Without

n.\t

: rfirrmant

wrongfully

1^.^--r-^r

with

i i tf

r.lamrndc

4-5. )

^^-

suflnnary judgmenL

^f

\\lolarrirrr

9'7 aL

ac^nrdi

fare

^-

rr

Biofuefs

Coastal
(Doc.

^f

PvJlLtu

and

from

..ri

n.rr.\n

Defendant

e n - r i c h m e n L ,"

TV.

T,cvi

nrnc-onc

recover

: '. rr r y
u -r

rl-

f f

that

in<rtr:naa

r haqa

nri

i f f

iS

the
nnt-an

unjust
support,

Lovi

nal- nn

enciCled

Plainriff

l

ro

Lexi:rgron's

r-laim.

D
VOLUNTARY AYMENT OCTRTNE
P
F,ven

assrmi no

accountabfe
the

under

vol rrnfar\/

D-ar-tr

either

of

n a v 'm e n t
ts- r

',ey'rrr-on

i,T

Defendant

Coastaf

Pfaintiff

dOCtrine

from

be

coufd

held

Lexington's
wou-ld

recovering

1n

^ '^h

sti11

y!

vr

case.

this

i l-.. +

Llv!

L

In

Georgia,
Paymenrs of claims made through iqnorance of Lhe
.Law or where alf the facts are known and there is
no
mispfaced
confidence
no
art.if ice,
and
[raudu].enr practice
deception,
used by the
or
o' her D,:r-v are cjeerrcrl \ro ||n n -\/ and cannoL be
recovered
made under
urgent
unfess
an
and
immediace necessity therefor
or Lo release person
property
prevent
from detention
or
or
to
an
immediate seizure of person or property.
v v l g , | ! 9 | 1 ,

O,C,G.A.

S 13-1-13.

burden of
pavment

The

parLy

esLabljshing

the

S.

Mut.

doctrine.

seek-ng

recovery

inapplicability
Church

I2

Ins.

of
Co

bears

the

Lhe

voluntary

ARS Mech.

LLC,

306

Ga.

(q u o r r n g

148,

App.

Energy

&

703 s.E.2d

1 5 1,

Process

Corp.

v.

363,
Dally

Jim

(2010)

366

& Assoc.,

ca. App. 1'72, 115, 662 S.E.2d 835, 839 (2008))
this

In
identifrz

erridenr:e in

payment
aIl

ro

r " r o n e n l -i ^ -

T . , o xn o f o n c l i n o s
i
Lo

inceresc

da.]

Plainriff
stilI
tha

rr

S 13-1-13.
sunmary
u,nrrl.i

idea

hj r r
v

n:

to

ra,^ainl-

rhri

Accordingly,

judgment
^n^ral-a

nronl

| n dv : e nPrs r l g j
r
! r

that

knowledge ol
confidence,
Defendant

Lhat Darby Bank held
95 ac

it

Therefore,

^ ^ r i - \ r'

a,u!

Frnm

),

PfainLiIf

Defendant
rhe
rr.lo

Coasta.I

voluntary

is

13

used by
a

a

entitled

c

A

to

paymenc docrrine
hrr

TAvih^t^-

urham

Lexington

qaa

rr.rl rrnl

no

info:maL ion

any misp.Laced confidence
lhF

its
had

il

that

However, Lhis
rho

insurance

the

mi s p l a c i n g

ion

a

P-LainLif f

B-9.)

tendered
after

n.\j-

to

insurance

LhaI

si

(Doc.

R:nk

because
l.\

mispl aced

rcnrese**ar

recove-r.

.1f

ro

property.

Lo establish
in

wichouc

Coastaf

BAnk, s

insured

seeks

fails
nrri

na rh\/

in the

^r^\7i

the

made the

it

Lexingron

property.

faifed

has

eirher

re

ll

Defendant

I r

nan^a

..1fr

fo

that

due

P]ainciff

insured

-Lien on the

record

or

. rarr-l

inIormed

Lexington

Coastal

facts,

.\r

proceeds

the

Defendant

rel evanL

Coasta]

Plaintiff

case,

Dl^ihiiff

CONCLUSION
Tf

r'r^l-1^l-\l
\/

Lexington,
the

one in
afso

Ieeling

rhis

to

mi s f o r t . r n e ,
failed
fi:

to

rhrr

obtain
.li

<rrrn.ror'l

.an\7

-Lefc wich
away wiuh

rolrrinn

^n

Plaintiff

hand,

architect

:

-

LexingLon
of

its

independenL

amount of

i nr- .roer

l\/

i
- ,n-

this

were

money,

Defendant
T.av in.ti.rn

this

adjuster

documentation

,- , .t e
l

nrlrh-rl-ar.l

har-:rrca

is

-+

on

Lexington,
for

di smissa I ol

return

-^ -e

r i .! r hr tL I
Yr

Court

of

that

property,

lnsureo

nhnna

nnnrrarcrr-i

^-

Lo be a

to

refief

argument over

found

hesitate

force

money
t-hinA

a court

must

Solomon

a]one.

has failed

iLs

l-he

Lhe

resoLved in

and this

obtaining

wou.Ld not

ie

being

equity
it

to
iI

t -l - ' ^

playground

simple
Court

the

p-layground,

basis

a

Coastaf

dispuce

based

own

l ac<ar

If
funch

f

is

Lexingcon's
slightest

Pf aintif

an unnamed Darby Bank empLoyee. Thac appears

..\el

the

primary

the

eimnlrr
"',..1-./

with

the

be

tO

Coasta-L got

Defendant
oLher

Pla inLiIf

R:nlz

inero:d

thac

comf Ort

Lhe day Lhe Court

On the

case,

seems

COld

aS

aL che end of

but

distincc

comes

artj-culate
in

cl-aims.

T4

this

Ll^L'6r'6r

law and not

c - a f I + r nYo
L i r
u-s!

Unfortunatefy

Pl ainti ff

r'{
n

fo1-low the

and
arru

Lo

t-^

of

to

for

.1aw insLead
an

.)ul---mp

plaintiff

anv 1eqal or
case/

on

factual

necessitating

F.nr

46)

f .\rF.r^

!v!!YvrrrY

cfose this

naron.r311

is

a

result

motion

COaSta

is

I

'

S

(DOC .

GRjANTED and

y
S u r n mra J u d g m e n c ( D o c '

Lexi ngLonrs Mot ion for

DENIED. As

Complaint

i na

Summary Judgment

for

Motion

i
P - L an L i f f
is

- ha

Pl-aintiff

DISMISSED. The Clerk

Lexinqton's
of

Court

is

92)

Thlrd-Party
DIRECTEDto

case.
.> t 57

L
So ORDERED hLs 1/;

dav of

September 2017.

T ^ i T TT T A M

T

MnnAF

.TP

U N I T E D S T A T E SD I S T R I C T C O U R T
D
SOUTHERN ISTRICT OE GEORGTA

15