Nationwide Property v. Clyde Osburn, No. 09-10671 (11th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-10671 Non-Argument Calendar FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 21, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-00066-CV-5 NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLYDE OSBURN, a.k.a. Larry Osburn, MATT MATTINGLY, LIBERTY AUCTION, INC., Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (July 21, 2009) Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company ( Nationwide ) in an insurance coverage dispute. Specifically, the district court determined in a detailed written order that Nationwide had no duty to defend or indemnify appellants Liberty Auction, Inc. and Matt Mattingly because of an unambiguous exclusion contained in the policy of insurance. We review a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2007). After reviewing the record and reading the parties briefs, we agree with the district court that the undisputed facts show that Clyde Osburn s injuries arose out of the maintenance 1 of an automobile that was being operated 2 by Liberty Auction through its agent, Mattingly. As a result, we agree with the district court that the exclusion applies, and Nationwide does not have the duty to defend Liberty Auction and Mattingly under the insurance policy. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide. 1 See Hollis v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 203 Ga. App. 252, 253, 416 S.E.2d 827, 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). 2 See Williams v. State, 111 Ga. App. 588, 592, 142 S.E.2d 409, 462 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965); Flournoy v. State, 106 Ga. App. 756, 758-59, 128 S.E.2d 528, 530-31 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962). 2 AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.