York Insurance Company v. Williams Seafood of Alba , 223 F.3d 1253 ( 2000 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-14419 APR 06, 2001
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No.95-00114-CV-WLS-1-2
YORK INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAMS SEAFOOD OF ALBANY, INC.,
WEBB PROPERTIES, INC., and
OXFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 6, 2001)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and FLETCHER*, Circuit Judges.
___________________________
*Honorable Betty B. Fletcher, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
WILSON, Circuit Judge:
We now revisit this case upon its return to us from the Georgia Supreme
Court, to which we certified a question of Georgia state law. See York Ins. Co. v.
Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., 223 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2000).
The facts, briefly, are that York Insurance Company (“York”) issued a
policy of insurance to Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., Webb Properties, Inc.,
and Oxford Construction Company, Inc. (“Williams”) covering Williams’s
restaurant. Following a flood, the restaurant collapsed into a sinkhole, suffering a
total loss. Williams then filed a claim with York, asking York to cover the loss.
York denied Williams’s claim because its investigation revealed that the loss was
caused directly or indirectly by the flood, which was an excluded precipitating
event. York next sought from the district court a declaratory judgment that the loss
was not covered. After a bench trial, the district court granted York a declaratory
judgment absolving York of all liability for Williams’s collapsed building loss.
Williams appealed to this Court.
After hearing oral argument in the case, we determined that the pivotal issue
turned on an unresolved question of Georgia law. We therefore certified to the
Georgia Supreme Court the following question: “Where the ‘exclusions’ section
of an insurance policy excludes coverage for damage resulting directly or
2
indirectly from floods, but the ‘additional coverage - collapse’ section specifically
includes sinkhole collapse damage, does the policy cover damage produced by a
sinkhole collapse that was precipitated by a flood?” York, 223 F.3d at 1256.
The Georgia Supreme Court has answered our certified question; the Court
responded, “we answer the question in the affirmative and hold that the policy
covers damage produced by a sinkhole collapse that was precipitated by a flood.”
York Ins. Co. v. Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., Ga., 2001, __ S.E.2d __ (No.
S00Q23003, March 19, 2001). Thus, under Georgia law, York’s insurance policy
covered Williams’s loss. It follows that the district court’s grant of a declaratory
judgment to York absolving York of liability for Williams’s loss was in error.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of a declaratory judgment,
and REMAND for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3