IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No.

Similar documents
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No: 0:11-cv JIC.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D. C. Docket No CV-3-LAC-MD

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv JEC. Plaintiff - Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-T-17MAP.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv TCB

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv CEM-DCI. versus

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv CW

Bankruptcy Circuit Update Featuring cases from April 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv WTM-GRS.

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. v. Judge John Robert Blakey MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv RLR. versus

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv RNS

United States Court of Appeals

Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of TexasUSDC 4:08-CV-21

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CV-KLR.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv GRJ.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv JDW-TGW

Case 9:16-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2017 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAL UNREPORTED

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

F I L E D October 8, 2013

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE DECEMBER 2, 2008 Session

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT. the trial court s Final Judgment entered July 16, 2014, in favor of Appellee, Emergency

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed July 22, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E.

2014 IL App (5th) U NO IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Prudential Prop v. Boyle

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

United States Court of Appeals

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: OVERVIEW AND UPDATE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 7:13-cv LSC.

Q UPDATE EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS CASES OF INTEREST D&O FILINGS, SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

OF FLORIDA. ** Appellant, ** vs. CASE NO. 3D ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO TRIPP CONSTRUCTION, INC., ** Appellee. **

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WILLIAM JOSEPH BOYLE, Appellant

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON June 16, 2010 Session

Eleventh Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

v No Wayne Circuit Court HELICON ASSOCIATES, INC. and ESTATE OF LC No CK MICHAEL J. WITUCKI,

11th Circuit: Computer Fraud Policy Did Not Cover Loss That Did Not Result Directly From Computer Fraud

United States Court of Appeals

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 13a0750n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv JSM-PRL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-232-KS-MTP

The appellee, Kettler Brothers, Inc., is a builder which has. been in the business of building and selling residential townhouses

Sharing the Misery: Defects with Construction Defect Coverage

Standard Mortgage Clause Preserves Coverage for Mortgagee Notwithstanding Carrier s Denial of Named Insured s Claim

v No Jackson Circuit Court

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv RLR

ADDRESSING MULTIPLE CLAIMS.

Case 1:14-cv WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/30/2014 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals

Follow this and additional works at:

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

Case 3:16-cv JPG-SCW Document 33 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #379 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

COUNSEL JUDGES. Stowers, Jr., Justice, Ransom, Justice, Concurs, Garcia, Judge, Court of Appeals, Concurs AUTHOR: STOWERS OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 16a0037n.06. Nos /2488 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Court of Appeals of Ohio

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APRIL 4, 2002 Session

OF FLORIDA. An Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jeri B. Cohen, Judge.

Green Machine Corp v. Zurich Amer Ins Grp

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

No. 45,945-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * *

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv JA-KRS.

Does a Taxpayer Have the Burden of Showing Intent to Divert Corporate Funds as Return of Capital?

Camico Mutual Insurance Co v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta

Decided: April 20, S15Q0418. PIEDMONT OFFICE REALTY TRUST, INC. v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO.: 5D

Transcription:

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-13134 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03483-SCJ [DO NOT PUBLISH] AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, THE ABRAM LAW GROUP, LLC, RICHARD S. ABRAM, NORTH COAST TITLE, LLC, CHERYL MEDLEY, BBC PARTNERS, LLC, et al., versus Plaintiff-Appellee, Defendants-Appellants, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (February 14, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 2 of 7 PER CURIAM: Appellants the Abram Law Group, Richard S. Abram, North Coast Title, LLC, and Cheryl Medley appeal the district court s judgment on the pleadings to American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (American Guarantee). The district court concluded that, inter alia, American Guarantee had no duty to defend the underlying lawsuit against Appellants because the claims in the underlying lawsuit were either based on or related to acts or omissions occurring before May 1, 2006. Appellants contend (1) the district court erred in determining the prior acts exclusion in the parties professional liability insurance policy bars coverage if the claims are causally connected in any way with an act or omission that took place prior to May 1, 2006; and (2) even accepting the district court s interpretation of the policy s language, the district court erred because the underlying lawsuit alleged certain acts and omissions that were not based on any acts or omissions that occurred prior to May 1, 2006. After review, 1 we affirm the district court s judgment. American Guarantee s Amended Complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the prior acts exclusion in its policy barred coverage for an underlying lawsuit against the Appellants. The prior acts exclusion states: This policy 1 We review de novo a district court s entry of judgment on the pleadings, accepting the facts in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2002). 2

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 3 of 7 specifically excludes coverage for Damages and Claim Expenses because of Claims brought against any Insured based on any act or omission or any Related Act or Omission that occurred or is alleged to have occurred prior to 5/01/06. The underlying lawsuit was brought against Appellants by a real estate developer, BBC Partners, LLC, and a bank, RM Kids, LLC, over the failed development of a residential subdivision in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Count One of the underlying lawsuit alleged malpractice by Appellants in a real estate closing on January 26, 2006, which involved a $7.35 million loan BBC Partners borrowed from RM Kids on a short-term basis to purchase a 114-acre tract of land for the subdivision (the Acquisition Loan). Count Two of the underlying lawsuit alleged fraud and conspiracy by Appellants in a real estate closing on April 23, 2007, which was done in order to cover up the alleged malpractice committed on January 26, 2006. As part of the April 2007 closing, BBC Partners borrowed an additional $2.5 million from RM Kids (the Development Loan) to develop the property purchased through the Acquisition Loan. The underlying lawsuit alleges Abram and Medley committed wrongful acts in both closings. As to the Acquisition Loan closing, it alleges that Abram and Medley committed malpractice by failing to identify three exceptions to the property s title: (1) certain environmental restrictions contained in a prior deed from Colonial Pipeline; (2) a waterline easement; and (3) a driveway easement. 3

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 4 of 7 The underlying suit further alleges that BBC Partners discovered the waterline and driveway easements prior to the Development Loan closing, and that BBC was seeking coverage for these errors under the title insurance policy Abram issued in the Acquisition Loan as the agent of Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (Old Republic). As to the Development Loan closing, the underlying suit alleges the Appellants fraudulently schemed to close the Development Loan in such a way as to eliminate Old Republic s liability for Abram s and Medley s errors in the Acquisition Loan closing. The lawsuit alleges Abram and Medley sent out quitclaim deeds to release the Acquisition Loan security deed and terminate Old Republic s obligation under the Acquisition Loan title insurance policy. Abram and Medley also added the water line easement and the driveway easement as exceptions in the Development Loan closing documents. Further, Abram and Medley failed to issue the owner s title insurance policy to BBC Partners. The lawsuit alleges Abram unethically circumvented BBC Partners attorney to cause BBC Partners to execute a new deed with the additional exceptions. Abram also failed to advise RM Kids that he had a conflict of interest based on the errors he committed in the Acquisition Loan. Old Republic filed a cross-claim against the Abram Law Group. In Count One, Old Republic contends the Abram Law Group is liable for any judgment 4

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 5 of 7 entered against Old Republic for the alleged fraud and conspiracy to eliminate its liability for the Acquisition Loan errors. In Count Two, Old Republic alleges the Abram Law Group was negligent in failing to identify the original three exceptions to title. Abram and Medley tendered the lawsuit and cross-claim to American Guarantee and requested a defense. American Guarantee agreed to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights and brought this declaratory judgment action. We agree with the district court s conclusion that the prior acts exclusion bars coverage for any claim connected to the January 26, 2006, Acquisition Loan closing. The prior acts clause excludes coverage based on any act or omission or any Related Act or Omission that occurred or is alleged to have occurred prior to May 1, 2006. The policy defines Related Act or Omission as an act or omission that forms the basis for two or more claims, where a series of continuous, repeated, interrelated or causally connected acts or omissions give rise to one or more claims.... Though Appellants contend Count Two alleging fraud in the underlying lawsuit relates only to the April 23, 2007, Development Loan closing and thus is covered under the policy, the acts and omissions giving rise to the malpractice claim from the January 26, 2006, Acquisition Loan closing also undergird the 5

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 6 of 7 fraud claim regarding the Development Loan. The alleged negligence involved in the Acquisition Loan closing is the necessary predicate to the fraudulent scheme to extinguish the 2006 lender s title insurance policy and fraudulent insertion of additional exceptions to the 2007 title insurance policy. Further, the claims that (1) Abram dealt directly with BBC Partners to ensure the deed to secure debt containing the additional exceptions was signed, (2) the owner s title insurance policy listing the additional exceptions was not issued so the exceptions would not be discovered, and (3) Abram failed to disclose the conflict of interest, all flow from Abram s and Medley s alleged failure to disclose the restrictions and easements in the January 26, 2006, closing. The district court did not err in determining the acts and omissions surrounding the Acquisition Loan closing form the basis of the claims regarding the fraud alleged during the Development Loan closing, or in finding the other acts or omissions surrounding the Development Loan closing were interrelated to or causally connected to the acts or omissions at the Acquisition closing. Cf. Cont l Cas. Co. v. Wendt, 205 F.3d 1258, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2000) (applying plain meaning of the term related to a dispute over insurance coverage). Additionally, we reject Appellants contention that Old Republic s crossclaim also does not allege any pre-may 1, 2006, acts. The cross-claim alleges a fraudulent scheme to eliminate Old Republic s liability under the Acquisition Loan 6

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 7 of 7 title insurance policy for the errors Abram and Medley committed while closing the Acquisition Loan. Thus, the acts or omissions surrounding the Acquisition Loan are also related to this claim. The district court did not err in concluding the prior acts exclusion applied to exclude coverage of the claims against Appellants in the underlying lawsuit. AFFIRMED. 7