Strickland v. Arch Insurance Company

Filing 48

ORDER granting Arch's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Strickland's 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter the appropriate judgment and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/10/2017. (ca)

In tl^e
States! Biiectrtct Conrt
for tl^e ^ontfiem Bi£(trtct of(ieorstn
Wujfttstii 29ttits[ton
DEVIN B. STRICKLAND,

Plaintiff,
No, 5:14-CV-70

V.

ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER

Before

Defendant

the

Arch

Court are Plaintiff Devin B. Strickland and

Insurance

judgment motions.

Co.'s

{''Arch")

Dkt. Nos. 24, 26.

competing

summairy

The motions have been

fully briefed and the Court heard oral arguments on both
motions.

The

Dkt. Nos. 28, 31-32, 35-36, 38.

motions

present

construction

finished,

limitations,

when

the

a

so

simple
as

public

to

question:
trigger

authority

a

finds

satisfactory and takes responsibility for it?

Is

public

statute

the

of

project

Or does the

authority also need to issue formal "final acceptance"?

No

final acceptance is needed, because O.C.G.A. § 13-10-65 is
concerned

policy and

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

with

actual

procedure."

work,

not

the

authority's

"internal

U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Rome

Concrete Pipe Co., 353 S.E.2d 15, 16-17 (Ga. 1987).

For this

reason, as discussed below, the Court GRANTS Arch's motion,
dkt. no. 24, and DENIES Strickland's motion, dkt. no. 26.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Strickland supplied sand to Douglas Asphalt for use on a

Georgia Department of Transportation
Dkt. No. 24-1 nil 1-2.
n 4.

C'GDOT") road project.

Douglas Asphalt went into default.

Id.

Arch took over Douglas Asphalt's duty, pursuant to an

agreement, then arranged for the work's completion by a third

party.

Id. K 5; Dkt. No. 24-3 at 6-9, 16-17.

never paid.

Dkt. No. 31-3 1| 7.

on August 22, 2014.

He sued Arch seeking recovery

Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4.

to this Court on September 19, 2014.

According

to

GDOT,

Strickland was

the

The suit was removed

Dkt. No. 1.

underlying

road

work

was

''substantially complete," "ready for final inspection," and

"complete and satisfactory" on August 25, 2010.
at

12:2-10.

The

September 1, 2010.

builder

requested

final

Dkt. No. 22-3 at 1.

Dkt. No. 22

inspection

on

It requested that

GDOT take over project maintenance on January 25, 2012, "since
all the [work] [had] been completed."

Dkt. No. 22-4 at 1.

On

February 1, 2012, GDOT's area engineer informed his district
engineer

that

completed."

the

"project

Dkt. No. 22-5 at 1.

ha[d]

been

satisfactorily

Arch chimed in on February

8, 2012, informing GDOT that "[t]he project ha[d] been open to

unrestricted
completed.

On

traffic"

and

all

work

was

satisfactorily

Dkt. No. 22-7 at 1.

March

12,

2012,

GDOT

accepted

project

maintenance

responsibility retroactive to September 14, 2011.
22-8.

Dkt. No.

It considered all construction work complete, and all

that remained to be done was ''the final close out" paperwork.
Id. at 16:22-17:7.

Therefore, in summer 2012,

"semifinal" payment.

Id. at 15:8-16.

semifinal

auditor

in

that

Id. at 15:18-24.
money.

an

would

GDOT issued

The payment was only

later

check

for

errors.

GDOT did not end up paying any additional

Id. at 15:25-16:1.

Up until GDOT's "final written acceptance," the builder
had the duty to protect the project and repair any damage to
it.

Dkt. No. 22 at 22:10-18.

on September 22, 2014.

Final written acceptance issued

Dkt. No. 22-10 at 1.

Strickland found out shortly before this that GDOT was

"prepar[ing] to close out the job."
53:3.

Dkt. No. 23 at 52:25-

He was told by a GDOT employee that the project had not

yet been closed, but he needed to file any claims he had
immediately.

Id. at 54:3-10.

He was assured that GDOT would

not close out the project if there were any pending lawsuits,
so he responded by filing the instant suit.

Id. at 54:13-15.

In part, he had not taken earlier action because of a
GDOT

employee's

assurances

that

he

would

be

paid

and

indications that the project might need additional sand.

Id.

at 41:20-43:16; see also id. at 44:10-11

really tried to

demonstrate I was a team player . . . .").

However, he had

demanded payment in a September 7, 2012 letter to Arch, with
ten pages of records attached.

Dkt. No. 24-3 at 22-33.

Arch sought more documents, he did not respond.

When

Id. at 3.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is required where ''the movant shows that

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Civ. P. 56(a).

A fact is "material" if it "might affect the

outcome of the suit under the governing law."

Grp.

V.

Fed. R.

FindWhat.com, 658

FindWhat Inv^ r

F.3d 1282, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011)

(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986)).

A dispute is "genuine" if the "evidence is such that

a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party."
to

the

Id.

The court must view the evidence most favorably

nonmovant

party's favor.

and

draw

all reasonable

inferences

in

that

Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broad. Serv.,

Inc., 234 F.3d 501, 507 (11th Cir. 2000).
DISCUSSION

The

statute

of

limitations

bars

Strickland's

suit.

O.C.G.A. § 13-10-65 bars suits for recovery on public works

payment bonds "[brought after] one year from the completion of

the contract and the acceptance of the . . . construction by
the proper public authorities."
both

required.

performance,

authority."

and

Completion

acceptance

Completion and acceptance are
refers

^^to

to

action

the

by

builder's

the

public

U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Rome Concrete Pipe

Co., 353 S.E.2d 15, 16 (Ga. 1987).

Both were finished here as

of September 14, 2011, and Strickland did not file this suit
until August 22, 2014.
16:22-17:7,

23:14-18;

See Dkt. No. 1-1; Dkt. No. 22 at

Dkt.

No.

22-8.

Thus,

his

claim

is

barred.

I. WORK WAS COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 14, 2011.

Work on the road project here was completed by September

14, 2011.

Georgia's statute of limitations begins to run as

of ^^completion of the actual construction work"—not the public
authority's "'complet[ion] [of the project] under its policy
and procedures."

Rome Concrete Pipe Co., 353 S.E.2d at 17.

This gives the builder clear notice as to when to expect a
lawsuit, whereas interpreting the statute otherwise would keep

the window open until a year after some bureaucratic basilica
unpredictably sends up white smoke.

Id. at 16-17.

Thus,

Georgia's rule, like other statutes of limitation, ^^prevent[s]
surprises."

Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency,

321 U.S. 342, 348-49 (1944).