### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 6, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 11077

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 0 6 1 - C V- 1 - DH B H O O T E R S O F A U G U S T A , I N C ., S A M N IC H O L S O N , an d al l o th er p erso n s o re n titie s s im ila r ly s itu a te d , P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s , v ersu s A M E R I C A N G L O B A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t,

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 6, 2005) B efo re E D M O N D S O N , C h i ef Ju d g e, M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A m er i ca n G l ob al Insura nce C o. (“ A m er i ca n G l ob al ”) appeal s f rom a f i nal o r d e ro f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t e n te r e d in f a v o ro f H o o te r s o f

A u g u s ta , I n c ., ( “ H oot e r s ” ) i n a di s put e ove ra n um br e l l a l i abi l i ty pol i c y . A ti s s ue i s w he the rthe in s u r a n c e p o lic y ’s c o v e r a g e o f “a d v e r tis in g in

ju ry ” o b lig a te s A m e r ic a n G lo b a l to p a y a m o u n ts le v ie d a g a in s t H o o te r s f o rs e n d in g u n s o lic ite d f a x a d v e r tis e m e n ts in v i o l a t i o n o f

th e f e d e r a l Te l e p h o n e Co n s u me rPr o t e c t i o n A c t( “ TCPA ” ) , 4 7 U . S. C. § 227. T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tG e or gi a pr i nc i pl e s of c ontr a c ti nt e rpr e t a t i on co m p el v iew in g th e f

ax ad v er ti sin g as a “p u b li ca ti o n ” th at v io lated “a p er so n ’s ri gh tt o p ri vacy ” f

or pu rposes of the po l i cy ’ s a dv ert i si ng -i nj ury c ov er age. A ft er th o r o u g h r e v ie w , w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d a c c o r d in g ly a f f ir m its sum m ary j ud gm entorder. H ow ever , w e a l so fi nd thatthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tor de r e d A m e r i c a n G l oba l t o pa y pos t - j udgm e nti nt e r e s ton H oot e r s ’ s out s t a ndi ng l i abi l i ty, and there fore vaca t e the po rt i on of the j ud gm entthatordered A m er i ca n G l oba l t o pa y pos t -

j udgm e nti nt e r e s ta nd r e m a nd f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w i th thi s opi ni on. I. T he es se nt i al fa ct s a nd procedural hi st ory a re these : In 19 95 , H oo t er s p u r c h a s e d a d v e r tis in g s p a c e o n w e e k ly f ly e r s f a x e d to a d a tab a s e o f

A u g u s taTh ere le va nt p or tio n o f t hestatut ere a ds : 1 (b) Restric tions on use of automated te lephone e quipment (1) Prohibitions It sh all b eun lawf

ul f or any pers on wi thin th eUnite d St ate s – (A) to makeany

call (other than a

call madefor emerg ency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party ) usingany

automatic telephone dialing system or an a

rtificial or prere corde d voice – (i) to any emerg ency

telephone line ( including a ny “911” line a

nd any e merg e nc y

lin eof a ho sp ital, m e dic al physic ian o r s e rv ic eof fi c e , h e alth care facility , poison control center, or f ire prote ction or law enforc ement ag ency ); (i i) to t hete leph on elin eof

any gue st roo m or

patient roo m of

a ho sp ital, health ca re f acility , elderly

home, or similar establishment; or (iii) to any

telephone number assigned to a pag ing service , cellular te leph on eserv ic e , spe c ialize d mobil eradioserv ic e , o r o ther ra dio c omm on c arrier s e rv ic e , o r a

ny serv ic efo r which th ec alle d p art y is c ha rg e d f or thec all; 3 bu si ness es . S am N i chol son, an A ug ust a a tt orney, re ce i ved o ne of the fa xed cop i es of H oot e r s ’ s a dve r t i s e m e nt . O n J une 23, 1995, N i c hol s on s ue d H oot e r s a nd s ought cl as s c ert i fi ca t i on i n the S up er i or C ou rtof R i chm on d C ou nty, G eorgi a; the court gr a nt e d c l a s s c e r t i f

i c a t i on. T he N i c hol s on c l a s s ’ s s ui ts oughtda m a ge s unde rthe T C P A , w hi c h, a s c odi f

i e d a tthe t i m e , m a de i tunl a w f ul “ t o us e a ny t e l e phone f a c s i m i l e m a c hi ne , c om put e r , orothe rde vi c e t o s e nd a n uns ol i c i t e d a dve r t i s e m e nt t o a t el epho ne fa cs i m i l e m ac hi ne, ” 47 U . S . C . § 2 27 (b)( 1)(C ) ( 20 00 ) ( am ended 2 0 0 5 ) , a n d p r o v id e d a p r iv a te r ig h t o f a c tio n f o rv io la tio n s o f

th e A c t, id . § 1(B ) to initiate any telephone c all to any

residential telephone line usingan artif ic ial or pre re c orde d v oic eto de liv e r a me ssag ewi thout t

heprior e xpre ss consent of thecalled pa

rty , unless the call is i nitiated for emerg ency purposes or is ex empted by

rule or order by

the Commiss ion under pa ragraph ( 2)(B ); (C) to use any

telephone f

acsimile mac hine, computer , or other device to send a n unsolicited adver

tisement to a telephonefac simil e mac hine; or (D) to usean automatic te lephone dialingsystem in such a wa y that two or more t e l ep h o n el i n e s o f

a mu l t i - l i n eb u s i n e s s aree n g ag e d s i mu l t an e o u s l y.

. . . 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) (2000) ( amende d 2003 and 2005). Th estatut ealsoprov ide s: 2 (3) Privateright of ac tion A per son or entity

may, if otherwisepermitted by the laws or r

ules of cour

t of a State, bringin an appropriate c ourt of that State— (A) a n action base d on a violation of this subsection or the re gulations prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation, (B ) an action to rec over f or ac tual monetary

loss from such a violation, or to re ceive$500 in damag es for

each such violation, whichever is greater, or (C ) b oth su c h ac tio ns . I f the c ourt finds that the def endant willfully

or knowing ly

violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its di scretion, increa se the amou nt o f t heawa rd to a n amou nt e qu al to no t mo retha

n 3 tim e s th eamou

nt a vaila ble under subpa

ragraph ( B) of this paragraph. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) ( 2000). 4 22 7(b)(3). 2 O n M a r c h 21, 2001, a f

t e rtr i a l , a j ury r e turne d a ve r di c ta ga i ns tH oot e r s f or know i ngl y a nd w i l l f

ul l y vi ol a t i ng the T C P A , a nd on A pr i l 25, 2001, the tr i a l j udge ent er ed j ud gm entagai nstH oo t er s i n the am ou ntof $1 1, 88 9, 00 0, ca l cul at ed5

ac cordi ng t o st atut ory dam ages of $5 00 for e ac h v i ol at i on and tre bl ed as al l ow ed by the T C P A . H oot e r s appe a l e d the ve r di c t , buts oon the r e a f t e r , H oot e r s a nd N i chol son, on behal f of the cl as s, ent er ed i nt o a se tt l em entagre em entthatl ow er ed H oo t er s’ s l i abi l i ty t o $ 9 m i l l i on . In exchange, H oo t er s prom i se d t o d rop i t s app ea l of the st at e c ou rtj ud gm ent , fi l e adecl ar at ory j ud gm entac t i on agai nstA m er i ca n G l ob al and Z uri ch Insura nce C om pany, and ass i gn i t s c l ai m s a gai nstthe i nsurance c a rr i e r s t o the N i c hol s on c l a s s on r e que s t . T he S upe r i orC our tappr ove d the s e tt l e m e nt , a nd the f

i r s ta c ti n thi s e xt e nde d l i t i ga t i on dr a m a e nde d. H oot e r s the n br oughtthi s a c t i on a ga i ns tZ ur i c h, A m e r i c a n G l oba l , a nd the N i c hol s on c l a s s i n the S upe r i orC our tof R i c hm ond C ounty , G e or gi a . Z ur i c h a nd A m e r i c a n G l oba l t i m e l y r e m ove d the c a us e t o the U . S . D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe S ou thern D i stri ctof G eorgi a bas ed on di vers i ty of c i t i ze nshi p. T he di stri ctcourt re al i gn ed the part i es , desi gn at i ng the N i chol son cl as s a s apl ai nt i ff , and d eni ed H o o te r s ’s m o tio n f

o rr e m a n d . B o th H o o te r s a n d th e N ic h o ls o n c la s s s e p a r a te ly m ove d f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , a nd the de f e nda nt s j oi nt l y f

i l e d a m ot i on f

or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s w e ll. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof H oot e r s a nd the N i c hol s on c l a s s a nd e nt e r e d f i na l j udgm e nti n the a m ountof $5 m i l l i on– –the co v erag e am o u n tp ro v i d ed fo r i n th e i n su ran ce p o l i cy– – an d p o st -j u d g m en ti n t erestTh ec ov e rag eprov isi on of thepo lic y

state s: 3 6 on the $6 . 45 m i l l i on un pai d b al ance of H oo t er s’ s s ett l em ent . A m er i ca n G l ob al appe a l e d both the gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd the a w a r d of pos t - j udgm e nt in te r e s t. II . W e r e v ie w a g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o , v ie w in g th e m a te r ia ls pr e s e nt e d a nd dr a w i ng a l l f a c tua l i nf

e r e nc e s i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . S e e , e . g. , G e r l i ng G l oba l R e i ns ur a nc e C orp. of A m . v. G a lla g h e r , 2 6 7 F .3 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 3

– 3 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is appr opr i a t e w he n “ the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c t ” a nd “ the m ov i ng party i s e nt i t l ed t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). T he m ova ntbe a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthi s s t a nda r d i s s a t i s f i e d by pr e s e nt i ng “ pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on fi l e, t og ether w i th the af fi davi t s, i f a ny, ” thates t abl i sh the abse nce of any genui ne, m a t e r i a l f

a c tua l di s put e . I d. T he pr i m a ry i s s ue i n the c a s e i s w he the rthe a m ount s H oot e r s ow e s the N i c hol s on c l a s s f

orthe i rT C P A c l a i m s f

i tw i thi n the i ns ur a nc e pol i c y ’ s c ove r a ge for “ A dv ert i si ng Inj ury, ” def i ned i n p artas harm fr om “ [o] ra l or w ri tt en pu bl i ca t i on of m at er i al thatvi ol at es a per son’ s r i gh tof pri vacy . ” T he di stri ctcourt 3I . C o v er age

We will pay

on behalf of the Insured those sums in excess of the Retained Limit that the Insured be comes leg ally

obligated to pay

by rea son of liability

imposed by

law or a ssume d b y

theIns ure d und e r a

n Ins ure d Co ntra c t be c a

us eof B odily Inju ry, Prop e rt

y Damag e, Personal Injury

or Advertising Injury

that takes plac e duringthe Policy Period and is ca used by an Oc currencehappeningany where in the world. . . . Americ an Global Insuranc e Company Policy at 1. “Advertising Injury” is define d later: IV. Def initions A. Ad vertisingInju

ry me ans inj ur

y ari singso le ly

out of your adv e rtisinga c tiv iti e s a s a re sult o f o neor

moreof thefo llo wingof

fens e s: 1. Oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a person or org anization or disparag es a person’s or org anization’s goods, products, or serv ic e s; 2 . O ralo r wri tt e np u

b l i c at i o no f

m at e ri alth atv i o l at e s a

p e r s o n ’ s ri ghto f

p ri v a c y; 3. Misappropriation of advertisingideas or style of doingbusiness; or 4. Infring ement of c opy

right, titl e or slog an. I d. at 3. 7 concl ud ed thatG eorgi a rul es of contra cti nt erpret at i on fa vo re d rea di ng the po l i cy b ro ad ly to co v erth e T C P A claim s. T h e d istrict co u rt d eter m in ed th at th e T C P A ’s pr ot e c t i ons a ga i ns tuns ol i c i t e d f a xe s a m ountt o a “ r i ghtof pr i va c y ” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of

the a dve rt i s i ng- i nj ury pr ovi s i on. T h e te x t o f

th e p o lic y a n d th e la n g u a g e o f th e T C P A r e s o lv e th e s e is s u e s in fa vo r of c ov er age w hen read i n l i gh tof control l i ng G eorgi a l aw . B oth p art i es agre e thatG eorgi a l aw go verns the di sput e. Iti s by now axi om at i c thatG eorgi a l aw8

di re ct s c ou rt s i nt erpret i ng i nsurance pol i ci es t o asc ert ai n the i nt ent i on of the part i es by e xa m i ni ng the c ontr a c ta s a w hol e . R y a n v. S t a t e F a r m M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. , 413 S .E .2 d 7 0 5 , 7 0 7 ( G a . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c itin g J a m e s v . P e n n s y lv a n ia G e n e r a l I n s u r a n c e C o ., 306 S . E . 2d 422, 425 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1983) ) . A r e vi e w i ng c our tm us tc ons i de rthe or di na ry a nd l e ga l m e a ni ng of the w or ds e m pl oy e d i n the i ns ur a nc e c ontr a c t . I d. M oreover, G eorgi a l aw t ea ches , am bi gu ou s t erm s i n the po l i cy m ustbe construed in f a v o ro f th e in s u r e d to p r o v id e m a x im u m c o v e r a g e , id ., a n d w h e n r e a s o n ab le , a c o u r t s h o u ld r e a d a n in s u r a n c e c o n tr a c t “a s a la y m a n w o u ld r e a d it a n d n o t a s it mi g h tb e a n a l y z e d b y a n i n s u r a n c e e x p e r to ra n a tt o rn e y , ” Co n t ’ l I n s . Co . v . A m. M ot or i s tI ns . C o. , 542 S . E . 2d 607, 610 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2000) ( quot i ng J e f f e r s on Insura nce C o. of N ew Y ork v . D un n, 48 2 S . E . 2d 38 3, 38 8 (G a. C t . A pp . 19 97 ), r e v’ d on othe rgr ounds , 496 S . E . 2d 696 ( G a . 1998) ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) . T h e s e ru le s r e f le c t G e o r g ia ’s ju d g m e n t th a t th e in s u r e r , a s th e p a r ty w ith gr e a t e rc ontr ol ove rthe w or di ng of t e r m s i n the pol i c y , s houl d be a rthe bur de n of l a y i ng outthe t e r m s c l e a r l y a nd pr e c i s e l y . S e e J a m e s , 306 S . E . 2d a t431. A m e r i c a n G l oba l f

i r s ta r gue s tha tH oot e r s ’ s c onduc tvi ol a t e d no r i ghtof

“ pri vacy ” bec ause a f

ax se nti n v i ol at i on of the T C P A w ou l d n otconst i tut e a co m m o n -law to rt fo r in v as io n o f p riv ac y u n d erG eo rg ia law . A m er ican G lo b al’s re adi ng m ay be on e r ea sonabl e i nt erpret at i on , bu t , un deni abl y, i ti s a tl ea stas9

re as on abl e t o i nt erpret“ pri vacy ” m ore broadl y t o i ncl ud e a spec t s of pri vacy p r o t e c t e d b y o th e rs o u r c e s o f l a w, i n c l u d i n g s t a t e p r i v a c y s t a tu t e s a n d f e d e r a l l a w. I n d e e d , th e s ta tu to ry n o tio n o f b e in g f r e e f r o m in tru s iv e a n d u n s o lic ite d f a c s im ile tra nsm i ss i on s i s a tl ea star gu abl y e m bo di ed i n the com m on l aw ri gh tt o p ri vacy u n d e rG e o r g ia la w . A n e s s e n tia l e le m e n t o f th e r ig h t to p r iv a c y , G e o r g ia ’s c o u r ts ha ve r e c ogni z e d, i s “ the r i ght‘ t o be l e ta l one , ’ ” or“ the r i ghtt o s e c l us i on or s o litu d e .” Y a rb r a y v . S . B e ll T e l. & T e l. C o ., 4 0 9 S .E .2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 6

– 3 7 ( G a . 1 9 9 1 ) . N ot abl y , the i ns ur a nc e pol i c y c ont a i ns no l a ngua ge e xpl i c i t l y l i m i t i ng the s c ope of the t erm “ pri vacy ” or, for thatm att er , al ert i ng no n-expertpo l i cy ho l ders that c o v e r a g e d e p e n d s o n th e s o u r c e o f la w u n d e r ly in g th e r e le v a n t p r iv a c y r ig h t. F ol l ow i ng the G e or gi a rul e a nd i nt e rpr e t i ng a m bi guous t e r m s i n f a vorof the in s u r e d , w e a r e c o n s tr a in e d to r e je c t A m e r ic a n G lo b a l’s s u g g e s tio n th a t its c o n s tru c tio n o f

th e m e a n in g o f

p r iv a c y is th e o n ly r e a s o n ab le o n e u n d e rG e o r g ia l aw , as op po se d t o a broader i nt erpret at i on thatencom pass es vi ol at i on s of pri vacy ri gh t s e st abl i shed by fe dera l st atut es such as the T C P A . W e a re hard pres se d t o say tha ta l a y m a n c oul d notr e a s onabl y r e a d the not i on of pr i va c y a s br oa dl y a s the di s tr i c tc our tdi d. A m e r i c a n G l oba l a l s o s ugge s t s tha tthe T C P A pr ovi s i ons a ti s s ue do not cr ea t e ast atut ory r i gh tof pri vacy , al tho ug h the st atut e pl ai nl y c re at es a s t atut ory10

r i ghtt o be f

r e e f r om i ntrus i ons by uns ol i c i t e d f a xe d ort e l e phoni c a dve r t i s i ng. W hi l e i ta c know l e dge s , a s i tm us t , tha tthe s t a tut e a tl e a s tpa rt l y a i m s a tpr ot e c t i ng s om e pr i va c y i nt e r e s t s , A m e r i c a n G l oba l a r gue s tha tthe s e c t i on gove rni ng un sol i ci t ed fa xes i s c on ce rned on l y w i th the com m er ci al i m pactof un sol i ci t ed fax es, n o tw i th p ri v acy. In su p p o rto f i t s p o si t i o n , A m eri can G l o b al says th ato n l y a s m a ll p o r tio n o f

th e le g is la tiv e r e c o r d s u g g e s ts th a t u n s o lic ite d f a x e s v io la te p ri v acy. I ti s w or th not i ng tha tthe l e gi s l a t i ve r e c or d doe s i nde e d c ont a i n s ugge s t i ons thatC on gres s tho ug htof un sol i ci t ed fa xes a s a ki n t o i ntrusi ve t el epho ne ca l l s. S ee , e .g ., H .R . R e p . 1 0 2 - 3 1 7 , a t 5

– 6 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( “T h e p u rp o s e o f th e b ill ( H .R . 1 3 0 4 ) is to p r o te c t r e s id e n tia l te le p h o n e s u b s c r ib e rp r iv a c y r ig h ts b y r e s tr ic tin g c e r ta in com m er ci al sol i ci t at i on and adv ert i si ng uses of the t el epho ne and rel at ed t e l e c om m uni c a t i ons e qui pm e nt . . . . H . R . 1304 i s de s i gne d t o r e turn a m e a s ur e of c o n tr o l to b o th in d iv id u a l r e s id e n tia l te le p h o n e c u s to m e r s a n d o w n e r s o f f a c s im ile m ac hi nes. ”) . Indeed, the fi nd i ng s a cc om panyi ng the T C P A l egi sl at i on i l l ustra t e that C ongr e s s w a s e xpr e s s l y c onc e rne d aboutpr ot e c t i ng pr i va c y i nt e r e s t s , i nc l udi ng pr i va c y i nt e r e s t s i n pl a c e s of bus i ne s s . S e e , e . g. , T e l e phone C ons um e rP r ot e c t i on A cto f 1 9 9 1 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 2 -2 4 3 , § 2 (9 ), 1 0 5 S t at . 2 3 9 4 , 2 3 9 4 (“ In d i v i d u al s’ pr i va c y r i ght s , publ i c s a f e ty i nt e r e s t s , a nd c om m e r c i a l f r e e dom s of

s pe e c h a nd11

tr a d e m u s t b e b a la n c e d in a w a y th a t p r o te c ts th e p r iv a c y o f in d iv id u a ls a n d p e r m its l e gi t i m a t e t e l e m a r ke t i ng pr a c t i c e s . ” ) ; i d. §2( 14) ( “ B us i ne s s e s a l s o ha ve com pl ai ned t o the C on gres s a nd the F eder al C om m un i ca t i on s C om m i ss i on that a ut om a t e d orpr e r e c or de d t e l e phone c a l l s a r e a nui s a nc e , a r e a n i nva s i on of pri vacy , and i nt er fe re w i th i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ”) . W e r e f us e , how e ve r , t o a l l ow the T C P A ’ s l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory t o s w a y us t oo far i n ei th er d i rect i o n . W h eth er C o n g ress i n t en d ed th e p ro v i si o n s ag ai n st u n s o lic ite d f

a x e s to p r o te c t “p r iv a c y ,” a n d h o w m u c h th a t in te n tio n f a c to r e d in to the pa s s a ge of

the l a w , i s notr e l e va ntt oda y . G e or gi a l a w una m bi guous l y di r e c t s us t o s e a r c h f

orthe i nt e nt i ons of

the pa r t i e s t o thi s i ns ur a nc e c ontr a c t , notthe i nt ent i on s of di st antfe dera l l aw m aker s. W e there fore m ustconsi der the ordi nary m ea ni ng of the t erm “ pri vacy , ” notw hat everspec i al i ze d m ea ni ng the w ord m ay h a v e t a k e n o n i n th e c o n t e x to f th e T C P A. A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w , w e a r e s a t i s f i e d tha tthe t e r m “ pr i va c y ” c a n be re as on abl y r ea d as e xt endi ng beyond a part i cul ar , narr ow and m ore t ec hn i ca l defi ni t i on of pri vacy and encom pass i ng a broader l aypers on ’ s not i on of pri vacy as p r o te c te d b y v a r io u s p r o v is io n s o f s ta te o rf

e d e r a l la w . F o llo w in g th e G e o r g ia c o u r t s ’ p r a c t i c e o f

i n t e rp r e t i n g a m b i g u o u s t e r m s i n f a v o ro f g r e a t e rc o v e r a g e , we c o n c lu d e th a t f

a c s im ile tr a n s m is s io n s in v io la tio n o f th e T C P A a m o u n t to12

vi ol at i on s of “ pri vacy ” f or the pu rposes of the i nsurance pol i cy ati ss ue. T w o o ther c i rc ui tcourt s of app ea l appear t o h ave r ea ched si m i l ar c o n c lu s io n s w h e n in te rp r e tin g s im ila rin s u r a n c e p o lic ie s . R e c e n tly , th e E ig h th C i r c ui the l d tha ta M i s s our i i ns ur a nc e pol i c y tha tc ove r e d “ pr i va t e nui s a nc e ” a nd

“ i n v a s i o n o f

r i g h t s o f p r i v a c y ” c o v e r e d u n s o l i c i t e d f a x e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f

th e T C P A. U ni ve r s a l U nde rw r i t e r s I ns . C o. v. L ou F us z A ut o. N e tw or k, I nc . , 401 F . 3d 876, 881, 883 ( 8th C i r . 2005) . T he i ns ur e r , the c our tw r ot e , “ of f e r s onl y t e c hni c a l a nd re stri ct ed l egal defi ni t i on s t o sup po rti t s posi t i on thatvi ol at i on s of the A ctar e n e i th e r‘ p r i v a t e n u i s a n c e s ’ n o r‘ i n v a s i o n s o f p r i v a c y . ’ Un d e rMi s s o u r i l a w, we c a nnotr e s tr i c tthe unde f i ne d t e r m s i n s uc h a m a nne r . ” I d. a t882. T h e F if th C ir c u it a ls o ap p e a r s to h a v e r e a c h e d a s im ila rc o n c lu s io n . A di stri ctcourti n the N orthern D i stri ctof T exas foun d thatun sol i ci t ed fa xes am o u n t ed t o “ p u b l i cat i o n o f m at eri al th atv i o l at es a p erso n ’ s ri g h to f p ri v acy” w i thi n the m e a ni ng of

a c om m e r c i a l l i abi l i ty pol i c y . W . R i m . I nv. A dvi s or s , I nc . v. G ul f I ns . C o. , 269 F . S upp. 2d 836, 847 ( 2003) , a f f’ d pe rc ur i a m , 96 F . A ppx. 960 (5th C i r. 20 04 ). A panel of the F i fth C i rc ui ti ss ued an u np ub l i shed per c uri am op i ni on af

fi rm i ng the j ud gm entfor “ es se nt i al l y the re as on s s t at ed by the di stri ct court . ” W es t ern R i m , 96 F . A pp x. at96 0 (per c uri am ). A m e r ic a n G lo b a l n e v e r th e le s s c o n te n d s th a t th e F if th C ir c u it’s d e c is io n in13

W e s te rn R im is d is tin g u is h ab le b e c a u s e it c o n c e rn e d a d u ty to d e f e n d a g a in s t s u it, n o t th e is s u e o f

th e in s u r e r ’s u ltim a te liab ility . T h e E ig h th C ir c u it c a s e s im ila r ly in v o lv ed a d u ty to d ef

en d . B u t n o th in g in eith ero p in io n su g g es ts th at eith erco u rt’s deci si on turned o n the po ss i bi l i ty thatthe l aw sui t s a ti ss ue coul d h ave procee ded u n d e ra lte rn a tiv e th e o r ie s . I n d e e d , in e a c h o f th e tw o c a s e s , a d v e r tis in g in ju ry in the f or m of T C P A vi ol a t i ons w a s the onl y the ory tha tthe c our tc ons i de r e d a nd foun d capabl e of tri gg er i ng the du ty t o d ef end. U ni vers al U nd erw ri t er s, 40 1 F . 3d at 881–83; W e s t e rn R i m , 269 F . S upp. 2d a t842–50. A m er i ca n G l ob al cl ai m s, ho w ever , thateven i f the T C P A prot ec t s pri vacy ri gh t s, the i nsurance c on tra ct ’ s r ef er ence t o “ oral or w ri tt en pu bl i ca t i on of m at er i al th atv i o l at es a p erso n ’ s ri g h tt o p ri v acy” d o es n o tco v er H o o t ers’ s co n d u ctb ecau se th e r e w a s n o a c t o f

“p u b lic a tio n .” A m e r ic a n G lo b a l f ir s t s a y s th a t a n in tru s io n in to th e p r iv a te s p h e r e f

u n d a m e n ta lly c o n tr a d ic ts th e v e ry n o tio n o f “p u b lic a tio n ,” w h ic h s u g g e s ts a p u b lic a c t o f d is s e m in a tio n o f

in f o r m a tio n . T h is a r g u m e n t s im p ly confl at es tw o d i st i nctpers pect i ves. T he ac tof tra nsm i tt i ng an un sol i ci t ed fa x i nde e d i nvol ve s a publ i c a c tby the s e nde r . B utthe a c ti s thoughtt o vi ol a t e the re ci pi ent ’ s pri vacy . T here i s no con tra di ct i on . T he cond uctby w hi ch H oo t er s w as f ound t o vi ol a t e the T C P A , a nd f orw hi c h i tnow s e e ks c ove r a ge unde rthe in s u r a n c e p o lic y , is u s in g a f a x m a c h in e “to s e n d a n u n s o lic ite d a d v e r tis e m e n t.”Th ede finition re a ds : 4 publish . . . 1 a: to make g enerally known b: to make public announc ement of 2 a : to place be forethe public : disseminate b: to produceor re leasefor publication; specif : print c : to issue the work of (an a uthor) . . . . Webster’s Ninth New

Collegiate Dictionar

y 952 (1984). 14 A m e r i c a n G l oba l a l s o a r gue s tha tw e s houl d i nt e rpr e tthe t e r m “ publ i c a t i on” in a n a rr o w , le g a l s e n s e , a s a n e le m e n t o f th r e e p r iv a c y - r e la te d to r ts : p u b lic di s c l os ur e of

pr i va t e f a c t s , por tr a y a l of

a pl a i nt i f

f i n a f a l s e l i ght , a nd m is ap p r o p r ia tio n . A s w e h a v e n o te d , th o u g h , G e o r g ia la w s u g g e s ts th a t a re vi ew i ng courtm ustconsi der both the ordi nary and l egal m ea ni ng s of at erm i n an i nsurance c on tra ctand, w hen face d w i th am bi gu i ty, adop tthe i nt erpret at i on that f a vor s gr e a t e rc ove r a ge . W hi l e i tm a y be r e a s onabl e t o r e a d the t e r m s “ publ i c a t i on” a n d “p r iv a c y ” in a te c h n ic a l le g a l s e n s e , it is a t le a s t e q u a lly p la u s ib le to r e a d b o th t e r m s i n the i ror di na ry non- t e c hni c a l s e ns e . P l a i nl y , G e or gi a l a w di r e c t s us t o a dopt the i nt erpret at i on thatfa vo rs grea t ercoverage. H o o t ers’ s co n d u ctam o u n t ed t o an acto f “ p u b l i cat i o n ” i n th e o rd i n ary sen se o f th e w o r d . A m e r ic a n G lo b a l c ite s th r e e d e f in itio n s o f

th e te r m “p u b lis h ” f

o u n d in W e bs t e r ’ s N i nth N e w C ol l e gi a t e D i c t i ona ry : “ t o m a ke ge ne r a l l y know n, ” “ t o m a ke p u b l i c an n o u n cem en t , ” an d “ t o p l ace b efo re th e p u b l i c: d i ssem i n at e. ” W eb st er’ s 4 N i nth N ew C ol l egi at e D i ct i on ary 952 (198 4). H oo t er s purchas ed advert i si ng spac e on w e e kl y f

l i e r s di s s e m i na t e d by f

a x t o ne a r l y 8, 000 bus i ne s s e s . T hi s c our s e of15

c onduc ts qua r e l y f

i t s a tl e a s tthe thi r d of

A m e r i c a n G l oba l ’ s de f i ni t i ons a nd ar gu abl y f

i t s the other tw o as w el l . N ot abl y, the di ct i on ary thatA m er i ca n G l ob al ci t es al so i n cl u d es a fo u rth d efi n i t i o n o f “ p u b l i sh ” n o tm en t i o n ed i n th e ap p el l an t s’ b rief: “ to p ro d u ce o r r elea se fo r p u b li ca ti o n ; sp ec if[ica ll y] : p rin t. ” I d . H o o ters ’s co n d u ctfi t s th i s d efi n i t i o n ev en m o re cl o sel y. A s w e ha ve not e d, ourc onc l us i on i s a l t oge the rc ons ona ntw i th the concl usi on s r ea ched by the F i fth and E i gh th C i rc ui t s i n i nt erpret i ng si m i l ar i ns ur a nc e pol i c i e s . O urc onc l us i on di f f e r s , how e ve r , f

r om de c i s i ons r e nde r e d by the S eventh and F ou rth C i rc ui t s, w hi ch have i nt erpret ed si m i l aradvert i si ng -i nj ury pr ovi s i ons a s e xt e ndi ng onl y t o a pa r t i c ul a rs pe c i e s of pr i va c y vi ol a t i on– – v io la tio n s o f

a r ig h t to s e c r e c y o f

p e r s o n a l in f

o r m a tio n , n o t in tru s io n s in to a p r iv a te dom a i n. R e s . B a nks ha r e s C orp. v. S t . P a ul M e r c ury I ns . C orp. , 407 F . 3d 631, 6 4 0

– 4 1 (4 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ); A m . S t at es In s. C o . v . C ap i t al A sso cs. o f Jack so n C o u n ty, Inc. , 39 2 F . 3d 93 9, 94 2– 43 (7th C i r. 20 04 ). W e do notne e d t o di s c us s the S e ve nth a nd F our th C i r c ui topi ni ons a tl e ngth, s in c e A m e r ic a n G lo b a l d o e s n o t c o n te n d th a t th e in s u r a n c e c o n tr a c t’s r e f e r e n c e to “v io la tio n s o f

p r iv a c y ” d o e s n o t e n c o m p a s s in tru s io n s in to a p e r s o n ’s p r iv a te dom a i n. R a the r , A m e r i c a n G l oba l ’ s a r gum e nti s tha ta vi ol a t i on of the T C P A i s not the ki nd of i ntrusi on i nt o sec l usi on thatthe po l i cy covers . S ee B ri ef of A pp el l antat16

31 ( “ T he onl y m e a ns . . . by w hi c h N i c hol s on c oul d ha ve e s t abl i s he d a vi ol a t i on of pri vacy i n the cont extof fa cs i m i l e tra nsm i ss i on s w as un der the conceptof an

‘ i ntrusi on i nt o sec l usi on . ’ ”) ; i d. at37 (“ [T ] he part i es and the di stri ctcourtagre ed thatthe on l y ‘ pri vacy ’ i nt er es tar gu abl y vi ol at ed by the re ce i ptof un autho ri ze d f a c s i m i l e s w a s the r e s ul tof i ntrus i on i nt o the r e c i pi e nt ’ s a f f a i r s . ” ) . B e c a us e the c hi e f a i m i n c ontr a c ti nt e rpr e t a t i on i s t o di s c e rn a nd i m pl e m e ntthe i nt e ntof the part i es , w e dec l i ne t o l end the cont ra cta m eani ng thatnei ther party has sugg es t ed i th as. T he r e a r e , how e ve r , a ddi t i ona l r e a s ons f ordi s t i ngui s hi ng the S e ve nth a nd F ou rth C i rc ui tca se s f

rom thi s one. T he F ou rth C i rc ui tca se w as deci ded u nd er V i rgi ni a l aw , R es ou rc e B ankshares , 40 7 F . 3d at63 6; the S eventh C i rc ui tca se , u n d e rI llin o is la w , A m e r ic a n S ta te s , 3 9 2 F .3 d a t 9 4 3 . I n a d d itio n , th e F o u r th C i rc ui tca se i nv ol ved a m ore t i gh t l y w orded adv ert i si ng -i nj ury provi si on that de s c r i be d the c ove r e d a c t i vi ty a s “ m a ki ng know n t o a ny pe r s on oror ga ni z a t i on w ri tt en or spok en m at er i al thatvi ol at es a per son’ s r i gh tt o p ri vacy . ” R es ou rc e B a nks ha r e s , 407 F . 3d a t641. T hi s w or di ng s e e m s t o ha ve be e n a s i gni f i c a ntf a c t or i n the court ’ s dec i si on . S ee i d. at64 1– 42 . T he i nsurance c on tra cti n thi s c as e, how e ve r , r e f

e r s t o “ [ o] r a l orw r i tt e n publ i c a t i on” of s uc h m a t e r i a l , w hi c h doe s not su g g estth e fo cu s o n secrecy that “ m ak i n g k n o w n ” d o es.At trial, Americ an Global also cited a policy exclusion for adver

tising injury

“arising out 5 of thewi llf ul v iol atio n o f a

penal st atut eor

ordin anc e .”Th edis tric t c ourt foun d th at th eTCP A was a rem edi al s tatut e, n ota pen al s tatut e, an d thatth e ex clu si onth erefo re di d n otapp ly . 2 72 F. Supp. 2d at 1376. America n Global has not challeng ed this ruling on a ppeal, so wehave no oc c a sio n toreview i t. 17 A m e r ic a n G lo b a l a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e in s u r a n c e p o lic y w a s r e s tr ic te d to am ou nt s i dent i fi ed as “ dam ages ” a nd thata s t atut ory a w ar d u nd erthe T C P A do es no tam ou ntt o “ dam ages ” w i thi n the m ea ni ng of the po l i cy . T he di stri ctcourt corr ec t l y r ej ec t ed thi s a rgum ent , t oo , no t i ng thatthe po l i cy re fe rs t o “ sum s . . . that the Insure d b ec om es l egal l y obl i gat ed t o p ay by re as on of l i abi l i ty i m po se d b y l aw or as sum ed by the Insure d, ” w i tho utexcl ud i ng st atut ory penal t i es . A m er i ca n 5 G l ob al po i nt s t o sever al po l i cy prov i si on s r ef erri ng t o “ dam ages ” r ather than

“ sum s. ” T hese prov i si on s, ho w ever , do no tpu rportt o n arrow the i nsurer ’ s i ni t i al o b lig a tio n to p a y “s u m s .” E ven i f w e w er e t o rea d the w ord “ dam ages ” m ore narr ow l y than the w ord

“ sum s, ” the m ostnatural w ay t o rea d the po l i cy w ou l d b e t o ass um e thatthe po l i cy in te n d s th e n a rr o w e rm e a n in g o n ly w h e n it a c tu a lly e m p lo y s th e te r m “d a m a g e s .” F ore xa m pl e , the pr ovi s i on s pe c i f y i ng tha t“ da m a ge s tha ta r i s e f r om the s a m e or r e la te d in ju r io u s m a te r ia l o ra c t” f a ll w ith in th e s a m e “O c c u rr e n c e ” w o u ld o n ly a f f e c tthe a l l oc a t i on of

“ da m a ge s ” a m ong “ O c c urr e nc e s , ” w i thouta f f e c t i ng the al l o cat i o n o f su m s o th er th an “ d am ag es, ” an d cert ai n l y w i th o u taffecti n g th e b ase18

o b lig a tio n to p a y “s u m s .” F in a lly , A m e r ic a n G lo b a l c ite s E n d o r s e m e n t N o . 4 , a “P u b lis h in g L iab ility E xc l us i on” tha te xc l ude s “ P e r s ona l I nj ury orA dve r t i s i ng I nj ury a r i s i ng outof the u tte r a n c e o rd is s e m in a tio n o f m a tte rp u b lis h e d b y o ro n b e h a lf o f th e I n s u r e d .” A me r i c a n G l o b a l a r g u e s th a tth e e n d o r s e me n t , w h i c h t o o k e f f e c ta tth e s a me t i me a s the m a i n pol i c y , e xc l ude s a ny a dve r t i s i ng i nj ury c l a i m r e l a t e d t o publ i s hi ngr e l a t e d a c t i vi t i e s , i nc l udi ng the f a x c a m pa i gn. R e a d a s br oa dl y a s A m e r i c a n G l oba l s ugge s t s , how e ve r , the e ndor s e m e nt w oul d c om pl e t e l y w i pe outthe pol i c y ’ s c ove r a ge of a dve r t i s i ng i nj ury , s i nc e no r e a di l y c onc e i vabl e a dve r t i s i ng a c t i vi ty c oul d t a ke pl a c e w i thoutpubl i s hi ng ac t i vi t i es . Iti s notabsol ut el y c l ea r how G eorgi a l aw l oo ks up on such an e ndor s e m e nt . A m e r i c a n G l oba l a r gue s tha tG e or gi a l a w w oul d gr a ntthe e x c lu s io n a ry e n d o r s e m e n t p r e c e d e n c e o v e rc o n f lic tin g te r m s in th e p o lic y , a s it w oul d do w i th a n e ndor s e m e nta dopt e d a ta l a t e rt i m e , s e e U t i c a M ut . I ns . C o. v. D unn, 129 S . E . 2d 94, 96 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1962) ( hol di ng tha ta n e ndor s e m e nt a d o p te d a t a la te rd a te ta k e s p r e c e d e n c e o v e rth e o r ig in a l p o lic y te r m s b e c a u s e it r e f l e c t s a l a t e re x p r e s s i o n o f i n t e n t ) . No ts u rp r i s i n g l y , Ho o t e r s a r g u e s th a twe s houl d tr e a tthe e ndor s e m e nta s e qua l w i th the c onf l i c t i ng t e r m s i n the pol i c y a nd fol l ow the G eorgi a rul e hol di ng that“ w here on e provi si on of the po l i cy excl ud es19

l i abi l i ty a nd a nothe ra c c e pt s l i abi l i ty . . . the pr ovi s i on m os tf a vor abl e t o the in s u r e d w ill b e ap p lie d ,” W e lc h v . G u lf I n s . C o ., 1 9 0 S .E .2 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 ( G a . C t. A pp . 19 72 ). W h e n a n e n d o r s e m e n t is e n te r e d a t th e s a m e m o m e n t a s th e p o lic y it a c c o m p a n ie s , r a th e rth a n a t a la te rtim e , a n d th e e n d o r s e m e n t p u rp o r ts to o b lite r a te c ove r a ge , a s oppos e d t o m e r e l y c l a r i f y i ng, na rr ow i ng, orm odi f y i ng the t e r m s of c ove r a ge , w e be l i e ve the appr oa c h m or e c ons i s t e ntw i th G e or gi a l a w i s t o r e a d the e ndor s e m e nta nd the t e r m s of the pol i c y a s be i ng c oe qua l a nd thus t o e nf or c e the p r o v is io n th a t g r a n ts c o v e r a g e . G e o r g ia ru le s o f c o n tr a c t in te rp r e ta tio n a im to pr ot e c tpur c ha s e r s of

i ns ur a nc e f

r om m i s l e a di ng c ontr a c t s by pl a c i ng the bur de n on th e in s u r e rto d r a f

t th e in s u r a n c e c o n tr a c t c le a r ly . S e e J a m e s v . P a . G e n . I n s . C o ., 3 0 6 S .E .2 d 4 2 2 , 4 3 1 ( G a . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) ( “S in c e in s u r a n c e p o lic ie s a r e c o n tr a c ts of a dhe s i on pe nne d by the i ns ur e r , w he n a m bi gui ty i s pr e s e nt , c ons truc t i on of the po l i cy i s i n favor of the i nsured, al tho ug h i tm ustno tbe un re as on abl e or s tra i ned. ”) ( quot i ng I m pe r i a l E nt e rpr i s e s , I nc . v. F i r e m a n’ s F und I ns ur a nc e C o. , 535 F . 2d 287, 2 9 0 (5 th C i r. 1 9 7 2 )) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ); A l l ey v . G reatA m . In s. C o. , 287 S . E . 2d 613, 616 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1981) ( “ E xc e pt i ons , l i m i t a t i ons a nd excl usi on s t o i nsuri ng agre em ent s r equi re a narrow construct i on on the theory that th e i n su rer, h av i n g affi rm at i v el y ex p ressed co v erag e th ro u g h b ro ad p ro m i ses,20

a s s u m e s a d u ty to d e f

in e a n y lim ita tio n s o n th a t c o v e r a g e in c le a ra n d e x p lic it t e r m s . ” ) ( quot i ng K rug v. M i l l e r s ’ M ut . I ns . A s s ’ n of I l l . , 495 P . 2d 949, 954 ( K a n. 1 9 7 2 )) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). T h ro u g h th e l en s o f th i s st at e p o l i cy, gr a nt i ng c ove r a ge a nd s i m ul t a ne ous l y s w e e pi ng i ta w a y thr ough a nothe rpr ovi s i on e nt e r e d a tthe s a m e t i m e s e e m s t o pos e the s a m e r i s k t o the pur c ha s e rr e ga r dl e s s of w hether the excl usi on cl ause appears w i thi n the i nsurance pol i cy i t se l f or w i thi n an e ndor s e m e nt . W e a dd tha tA m e r i c a n G l oba l ha s of f e r e d no a l t e rna t i ve r e a di ng of the publ i s hi ng e xc l us i on tha te xc l ude s c ove r a ge f orvi ol a t i ons of

the T C P A but d o es n o tg o as far as w i p i n g o u tal l co v erag e fo r ad v ert i si n g i n j u ry. I n s hor t , be c a us e unde rG e or gi a l a w the pol i c y ’ s c ove r a ge of a dve r t i s i ng i nj ury appl i e d t o H oot e r s ’ s l i abi l i t i e s unde rthe T C P A a nd w a s notnul l i f i e d by E nd orse m entN o. 4, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s ordergrant i ng fi nal sum m ary j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f H o o t ers an d th e N i ch o l so n cl ass. II I. W e c onc l ude , how e ve r , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d w he n i tf ound tha tthe i ns ur a nc e c ontr a c tr e qui r e s A m e r i c a n G l oba l t o pa y pos t - j udgm e nti nt e r e s ton H oo t er s’ s l i abi l i ty, and w e vac at e the po rt i on of the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm entthat a w a r d e d p o s t-

ju d g m e n t in te r e s t. T he cont ra ctt erm s s peci fi ca l l y m ent i on i ng po st -j ud gm enti nt er es tappear21

un der ase ct i on t i t l ed “ D ef ense . ” T he po l i cy prov i des thatw hen A m er i ca n G l ob al “a s s u m e [ s ] th e d e f

e n s e o f a n y c la im o rs u it,” A m e r ic a n G lo b a l w ill p a y “a ll in te r e s t th a t a c c ru e s a f

te re n try o f

ju d g m e n t a n d b e f

o r e w e h a v e p a id , o f

f e r e d to p a y o rd e p o s ite d in c o u r t th e p a r t o f th e ju d g m e n t th a t is w ith in o u rap p lic ab le L i m i tof I ns ur a nc e . ” A m e r i c a n G l oba l I ns ur a nc e C om pa ny P ol i c y a t1–2. T he structure a nd l angu age of the po l i cy thu s s ug gestthatA m er i ca n G l ob al t oo k o n an obl i ga t i on t o pa y pos t -

j udgm e nti nt e r e s tonl y w he n i ta s s um e d the de f e ns e of the a s s o c i a t e d c l a i m. T h e d i stri ctco u rt , h o w ev er, reaso n ed th atth i s p o st -j u d g m en ti n t erest pr ovi s i on c oul d notbe r e c onc i l e d w i th the ge ne r a l c ove r a ge pr ovi s i on obl i ga t i ng A m e r ic a n G lo b a l to p a y “th o s e s u m s . . . th a t th e I n s u r e d b e c o m e s le g a lly ob l i gat ed t o p ay by re as on of l i abi l i ty i m po se d b y l aw . ” T he di stri ctcourtdeci ded t o i nt e rpr e tthe c ontr a c ti n f a vorof c ove r a ge by gi vi ng pr e c e de nc e t o the c ove r a ge pr ovi s i on a nd e f

f e c t i ve l y di s r e ga r di ng the pos t - j udgm e nti nt e r e s tpr ovi s i on. H oo t er s of A ug ust a, Inc. v. A m . G l ob al . Ins. C o. , C V 10 2-06 1, at3– 4 (S . D . G a. 20 04 ). W e di sa gree w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s app roac h. G eorgi a l aw fa vo rs an i nt erpret at i on thatgi ves e ff ec tt o al l prov i si on s i f s uch an i nt erpret at i on i s possi bl e. B oardm an P etrol eum , Inc. v. F eder at ed M ut . Ins. C o. , 49 8 S . E . 2d 49 2, 49 4 (G a.22

1988) ( “ T he c ontr a c ti s t o be c ons i de r e d a s a w hol e a nd e a c h pr ovi s i on i s t o be gi ve n e f f e c ta nd i nt e rpr e t e d s o a s t o ha r m oni z e w i th the othe r s . ” ) ( c i t i ng M c C a nn v . G ly n n L u m b e rC o ., 3 4 S .E .2 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 3 ( G a . 1 9 4 5 ) ) . D is r e g a r d in g p r o v is io n s in th e c o n tr a c t s h o u ld b e a la s t r e s o r t. A h a r m o n io u s in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e c o n tr a c t p r o v is io n s is n o t o n ly p o s s ib le b u tr e a s o n ab l e i n th i s c a s e . B o th th e p r o v i s i o n s o f th e c o n tr a c th a v e e f

f e c ti f we i nt erpretthe coverage provi si on as broadl y e st abl i shi ng A m er i ca n G l ob al ’ s gener al o b l i g at i o n s t o co v er H o o t ers’ s l i ab i l i t i es an d i n t erp retth e p o st -j u d g m en ti n t erest p ro v isio n as m o re sp ec ifically co n tro ll in g th e s co p e o f A m er ican G lo b al’s o b lig a tio n to p a y p o s t-

ju d g m e n t in te r e s t. T h is ap p r o a c h a ls o b e tte rc o m p o r ts w ith th e p r in c ip le th a t in c a s e s o f ap p a r e n t c o n f

lic t, s p e c if

ic te r m s in ac o n tr a c t s h o u ld b e in te rp r e te d to c o n tr o l g e n e r a l te r m s . S e e , e .g ., C e n t. G a . E le c . M e m b e r s h ip C o rp . v . G a. P o w er C o . , 1 2 1 S . E . 2 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 6 (G a. 1 9 6 1 ); B ro o m e v . A l l st at e In s. C o. , 24 1 S . E . 2d 34 , 35 (G a. C t . A pp . 19 77 ). G eorgi a l aw thu s f

avors i nt erpret i ng the cont ra ctas i m po si ng a duty t o p ay pos t - j udgm e nti nt e r e s tonl y w he n A m e r i c a n G l oba l t ook on the de f e ns e of the a s s oc i a t e d c l a i m . B e c a us e A m e r i c a n G l oba l di d notde f e nd H oot e r s f

r om the N ic h o ls o n c la s s ’s in itia l c la im , A m e r ic a n G lo b a l h a d a n o b lig a tio n to p a y p o s tju d g m e n t in te r e s t o n ly if it h a d a d u ty to d e f

e n d th e c la im a n d s im p ly f a ile d to23

sat i sfy th atd u ty. W e a r e c onvi nc e d tha tA m e r i c a n G l oba l ne ve rha d a duty t o de f e nd the cl ai m . T h e fi rstp arto f th e “ D efen se” sect i o n read s as fo l l o w s: II. D efen se A . W e [ A m e r i c a n G l oba l ] s ha l l ha ve the r i ghta nd duty t o de f e nd a ny c l a i m ors ui ts e e ki ng da m a ge s c ove r e d by the t e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of thi s pol i c y w he n: 1. T he appl i cabl e L i m i t s of I nsurance of the un derl yi ng po l i ci es l i s t e d i n the S c he dul e of U nde r l y i ng I ns ur a nc e a nd the L i m i t s of I ns ur a nc e of

a ny othe runde r l y i ng i ns ur a nc e pr ovi di ng c ove r a ge to th e I n s u r e d h a v e b e e n e x h a u s te d b y p a y m e n t o f c la im s to w hi ch thi s pol i cy appl i es ; or 2. D am ages ar e s ou gh tfor B od i l y I nj ury, P roperty D am age, P e r s ona l I nj ury orA dve r t i s i ng I nj ury c ove r e d by thi s pol i c y but n o t c o v e r e d b y a n y u n d e r ly in g in s u r a n c e lis te d in th e S c h e d u le of U nd er l yi ng Insura nce or any other und er l yi ng i nsurance pr ovi di ng c ove r a ge t o the I ns ur e d. A m er i ca n G l ob al Insura nce P ol i cy at1 (em ph as i s a dd ed). T he i nsurance c on tra ctthu s s peci fi ed thatA m er i ca n G l ob al as sum ed an obl i ga t i on t o de f

e nd H oot e r s onl y a f

t e rH oot e r s ’ s pr i m a ry c ove r a ge w a s e xha us t e d. W h e n H o o te r s ’s p r im a ry c o v e r a g e w a s e x h a u s te d , it h a d a lr e a d y s e ttle d its d is p u te w i th the N i chol son cl as s a nd t erm i nat ed i t s app ea l . A m er i ca n G l ob al ’ s c on tra ctual duty t o de f

e nd the r e f

or e ne ve rm a t e r i a l i z e d. B e c a us e A m e r i c a n G l oba l ne ve rha d a duty t o de f

e nd H oot e r s a ga i ns tthe N i c hol s on c l a s s c l a i m , i tc oul d notha ve ha d a24

d u ty to p a y p o s t-

ju d g m e n t in te r e s t. I V. H a vi ng c a r e f

ul l y r e vi e w e d the r e c or d, the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s opi ni on, a nd the a r gum e nt s of

the pa r t i e s , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d no e rr or w hen i tfoun d thatthe advert i si ng -i nj ury provi si on s of the i nsurance c on tra ct pr ovi de c ove r a ge f

ora m ount s ow e d f

orT C P A vi ol a t i ons . W e the r e f or e a f f i r m the entry of sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of H oo t er s a nd the N i chol son cl as s. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourterre d w hen i trul ed thatthe i nsurance c on tra ctre qu i re d A m er i ca n G l o b al t o p ay p o st -j u d g m en ti n t eresto n al l o f H o o t ers’ s o u t st an d i n g l i ab i l i ty. AF F I R ME D I N P AR T , VA C AT E D I N P AR T , AN D R E MAND E D.