Kevin Jumlist v. Prime Insurance Co., 92 F.4th 1008

Two patients died in 2013 at a Georgia clinic after liposuction procedures performed by Dr. Nedra Dodds; lawsuits followed on behalf of each estate.
The clinic’s insurer, Prime Insurance Co., issued a liability policy with a $50,000 limit per claim and a $100,000 aggregate limit, subject to a “diminishing limits” provision where defense costs reduced available coverage.
After multi-million dollar judgments against the Clinic (through consent judgments), the Clinic assigned certain insurance claims to the Beaubrun estate, which sued Prime and affiliates for additional coverage and damages.
Previous declaratory judgments in Utah and a domesticated judgment in Georgia held Prime had met its $50,000 per-claim and $100,000 aggregate coverage obligations.
The district court dismissed the Clinic/Beaubrun parties’ claims for breach of duty, breach of contract, negligence, and unauthorized sale of surplus lines insurance, finding contractual, preclusion, and statutory bars.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Policy Limit per Claim	Beaubrun argued the policy offered $100,000 per claim (professional liability) coverage.	Prime argued, and the policy stated, a $50,000 per claim limit under unambiguous language.	Policy unambiguously capped per-claim coverage at $50,000; court enforced that limit.
Statute of Limitations – Breach of Duty	Claimed six-year breach of contract limitations applied due to implied contractual duties.	Argued four-year period for breach of fiduciary duty applied; conduct not grounded directly in the policy.	Four-year breach of duty limit applied and expired before suit; claim time-barred.
Collateral Estoppel—Prior Declaratory Judgment	Prior default judgments on policy limits should not preclude current claims, especially as $100,000 limit wasn’t addressed.	Prior Utah (and domesticated Georgia) declaratory judgments foreclosed arguments re: policy limits.	Court did not rely on collateral estoppel, as policy language alone clearly resolved the issue.
Private Right under Surplus Lines Law	Plaintiffs sought damages for lack of required disclosure under Georgia Surplus Lines Insurance Act.	Defendants asserted no private cause of action exists for violations, only regulatory penalties.	Georgia law provides no private right of action; claim dismissed.

Newell Recycling of Atlanta, Inc. v. Jordan Jones & Goulding, Inc., 703 S.E.2d 323 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishing between contract and fiduciary claims for statute of limitations)
Hendry v. Wells, 286 Ga. App. 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (breach of fiduciary duty accrues with wrongful act and damage)
Kay-Lex Co. v. Essex Ins. Co., 649 S.E.2d 602 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (surplus lines insurance requirements in Georgia)
Benjamin v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 140 P.3d 1210 (Utah 2006) (plain meaning approach to Utah contract interpretation)
Utah Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Crook, 980 P.2d 685 (Utah 1999) (policy terms harmonized and given effect as a whole)
Gonsalvez v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., 750 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2013) (dismissal on statute of limitations grounds appropriate if apparent on complaint face)