Case ID: f-appx_447/html/0947-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND PARK, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
    No. 11-10030.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Nov. 29, 2011.
    Forrest S. Latta, Anna L. Scully, Burr & Forman, LLP, Mobile, AL, Robert S.W. Given, Burr & Forman, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Ap-pellee.
    Stephen L. Poer, Michael Charles Skot-nicki, William Mayfield Slaughter, Kirk Debardeleben Smith, Haskell, Slaughter, Young & Rediker, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
    Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, COX, Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG, Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Arrowood Indemnity Company (“Arro-wood”), 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.