609 F. App'x 972
11th Cir.2015Background
- Twin City seeks recoupment of the $10 million settlement Hartman Simons paid on Bank of North Georgia’s claim.
- District court dismissed Twin City’s complaint and denied reconsideration; Twin City appeals.
- Two insurance policies: coverage for malpractice with $100,000 deductible, up to $10 million, subject to timely notice and knowledge-at-inception exceptions.
- Bank’s indemnification claim arose from alleged broad release issues involving Northside and Williams; settlement demand tendered April 2013, with time limit to accept.
- Twin City filed suit before final settlement allocation; district court held waiver and voluntary payment doctrines barred claims; opinion vacates in part and remands for Hartman Simons to answer and for discovery.
- Declaratory relief claim related to noncoverage and allocation was dismissed/mooted by settlement; court affirms that aspect and remands as to other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver applicability to recoupment claim | Twin City not clearly waived on face of complaint | Waiver shown by delay and conduct | Waiver not shown on complaint; reversal as to waiver |
| Voluntary payment doctrine applicability | Payment was made under reservation of rights; not voluntary | Doctrine bars claim based on conduct | Remand for discovery; no clear face-of-complaint bar |
| Declaratory relief standing and mootness | Standing existed momentarily; seek declaration on allocation | Claim moot after payment | Affirm dismissal of declaratory judgment claim as moot |
| Scope of remand and ability to answer | Case should proceed to determine coverage and recoupment | Pre-answer defenses foreclose claims | Remand to allow Hartman Simons to answer and enable discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Adinolfe v. United Technologies Corp., 768 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2014) (standards for interpreting complaints in motion-to-dismiss context)
- Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2011) (fraud or affirmative defenses may require facial pleading)
- Kelly v. Lloyd’s of London, 336 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. 1985) (timing and reservation of rights in insurance defense)
- Richmond v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 231 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976) (waiver doctrine in Georgia insurance context)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (standing and pleading requirements relevant to affirmative defenses)
- Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) (allowing consideration of extra-pleading documents at dismissal stage)