Ameris Bank v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 4:2013cv00241 - Document 100 (S.D. Ga. 2017)

Court Description: 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).
Download PDF
Ameris Bank v. Lexington Insurance Company Doc. 100 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 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 case. Dockets.Justia.c 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 ^^ 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^ 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 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