Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Macon County Greyhound Park, I, No. 11-10030 (11th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-10030 ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOVEMBER 29, 2011 D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv-00812-MEF-CSC JOHN LEY CLERK ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter DefendantAppellee, versus MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND PARK, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Counter ClaimantAppellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (November 29, 2011) Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, COX, Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG,* Judge. PER CURIAM: * Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by designation. Arrowood Indemnity Company ( Arrowood ), the excess insurer, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it had no legal duty to indemnify its insured, Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. ( MCGP ), for a judgment against MCGP in excess of MCGP s primary liability insurance coverage. MCGP appeals the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Arrowood and the denial of MCGP s motion for summary judgment. MCGP presents three arguments on appeal: first, that the district court erred by ruling as a matter of law that MCGP s delay in giving notice violated the notice provision of Arrowood s excess liability insurance policy; second, that the district court erred by deciding Arrowood was prejudiced by this delay; and third, that the district court erred by concluding as a matter of law that MCGP was not protected by the savings clause in the policy. Having considered the briefs, relevant parts of the record, and having heard oral argument, we reject MCGP s arguments for the reasons stated in the district court s well-reasoned opinion. We affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Arrowood and the denial of MCGP s motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED. 2

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.