Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07044/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07044-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company
Appellee
James Eddy Burk
Appellant
Burk & Reedy, LLP
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 15-7044 September Term, 2015

 FILED ON: FEBRUARY 26, 2016

BURK & REEDY, LLP AND JAMES EDDY BURK, ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY,

APPELLANTS

v.

AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:13-cv-00890)

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, ROGERS, Circuit Judge, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court and on the 

briefs and the oral arguments of the parties. Although the issues presented occasion no need for a 

published opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the Court. See D.C. Cir. Rule 

36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Gratian Yatsevitch’s claims against James Burk and his law firm, Burk & Reedy, LLP, come 

within the “business enterprise” exclusion in Burk & Reedy, LLP’s professional liability

insurance contract with American Guarantee. All the claims in Yatsevitch’s original and 

amended complaints stem – at least in part – from Burk’s conduct on behalf of CTI, a business 

venture in which Burk owned a “controlling interest” as that phrase is defined in the insurance 

contract. Even the malpractice claim that Burk asserts is most clearly outside the business 

enterprise exclusion – that Burk improperly conveyed Yatsevitch’s house out of the Howe Trust 

– involves a transaction that was undertaken for the purpose of securing financing for CTI. 

Because Burk’s alleged representation and the resultant claims arose, at least in part, out of 

Burk’s activities on behalf of CTI, American Guarantee has no duty either to defend or to 

indemnify Burk or Burk & Reedy, LLP in the underlying action. Accordingly, we need not 

decide whether Mr. Yatsevitch’s claims also come within the “capacity or status” exclusion in 

the insurance contract. 

USCA Case #15-7044 Document #1600935 Filed: 02/26/2016 Page 1 of 2
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is 

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any 

timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. 

Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

 Ken Meadows

 Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-7044 Document #1600935 Filed: 02/26/2016 Page 2 of 2