Case ID: f3d_694/html/1199-01.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

Ricardo WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-14028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 11, 2012.
    Donald Ellis, Decatur, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    John Wallace Campbell, Pamela Newsom Lee, Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before PRYOR and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and HOPKINS, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Virginia Emerson Hopkins, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

This case involves a dispute about the enforceability — under Georgia law — of an insurance policy’s requirement that lawsuits against the insurance company be brought “within one year of the date of loss or damage.” The case returns to us after we certified these two questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: (1) “Did the Georgia Insurance Commissioner act within his legal authority when he promulgated Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-20-.02, such that a multiple-line insurance policy providing first-party insurance coverage for theft-related property damage must be reformed to conform with the two-year limitation period provided for in Georgia’s Standard Fire Policy, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-19-.01?” and (2) “Is this action barred by the Policy’s one-year limitation period?” White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 664 F.3d 860, 865 (11th Cir. 2011).

The Supreme Court of Georgia advises us that the answer is “no” to the first question, and “yes” to the second question. White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 291 Ga. 306, 728 S.E.2d 685 (2012). In the light of these definite responses, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . The facts are set out in our initial opinion. See White, 664 F.3d at 862-63.