FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 8, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 78 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 08 3- CV-WCO-2 INFINITY GENERAL INSURANCE CO., f.k.a . Cov en try Ins ur an ce Co ., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TONYA BOGGU S REYNOLDS, Ind iv idua ll y , VIVIANA TOVE R LLOYD, Ind iv idua ll y , et al ., Defen da nt s- App el lant s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 8 , 20 09 ) Befo re WILSON, ANDERSON, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d GOLDBERG,* Ju dg e. ANDERSON, Circ ui t J ud ge :

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ * Honora

ble Richard W. Goldber g , United States Court of International Trade J udg e, sitting by designation.CERTIFI CATION FROM THE UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE EL EVENTHCIRC UIT TO TH E SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A . § 1 5- 2- 9. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTIC ES: The in st an t ca se pre se nt s a que st io n o f Geo rg iain su ran ce l aw th atwe be li ev e is ap pr op ria te forcert ifi cat io n t o t he Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia . Befo re s et ti ng ou t th e que st io n t o b e certi fie d, we s etforth th e rel ev an t fa ct s an d d is po se of afew is su es go ve rn edby feder al law. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On J un e 5 , 20 06 , th e in su red , Rus se ll Grah am , pu rch as eda co m m erci al
au to m ob il e in su ran ce p ol ic y fro m Inf in ity Gene ral Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny, form erl y kn own as C ov en try Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny (here in refe rredto as the “ In su ran ce Co m pa ny”). Whi le op erat in g the in su redve hi cl e o n Au gu st2, 2 00 6, t he in su red ’s
so n was in vo lv edin a co ll is io n, fa ta ll y in juri ng hi s t wo p as se ng ers , Jo ey Lee Reynol ds an d Du st in EdwardLlo y d. Th e cru ci al is su e o f Geo rg iain su ran ce l aw to be cert ifi edin th is cas e is whet he r th e in su ran ce p ol ic y was i n e ffec t atth e ti m e o f th e co ll is io n. The Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny file d t he in st an t d ecl arat ory jud gm en t an d/ or 2in te rp le ad er ac ti on . Defen dant s i nc lu de d the in su red , th e es ta te of J oe y Lee Reynol ds , th e wid ow o f Jo ey Lee Reyno ld s, the est at e o f Dus ti n EdwardLlo y d, an d th e wid ow o f Dus ti n EdwardLlo y d. The s ev eral de fen da nt s o th er tha n t he in su red 1 are t he ap pe ll an ts in th is ap pe al
. The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t i t h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on bo thun de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 5, an d, b ecau se th ere was co m pl et e d iv ers it y

an d an am ou ntin
co nt ro ve rs y

ex ceed in g $ 75 ,00 0, u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 32 . The d is tri ctco urt the n gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e In su ran ce Co m

pa ny, con cl ud in g t ha t th ere wer e n o g enui ne is su es of m at eri al fact . The co urt thu s re so lv edth e fac ts of th e cas e, to wit : tha t the Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny nev er re cei ve d t he in su red ’s all eg ed pr em iu m paym en t, tha t the pre m iu m was o ve rdue aft er J ul y

5, 2 00 6, an d t ha t the Ju ly 10, 2 00 6, canc el la ti on no ti ce an d t he tes ti m on y of J oy Lietc h d idno t ex te nd th e o ve rdue pre m iu m

pa ym en t d at e. The d is tri ctco urt the n h el d a s a m atte r of Geo rg ialaw t ha t the Ju ly 10, 2 00 6, ca nc el la ti onno ti ce ef fect iv el y can cel le d t he po li cy . W e fi rs t re so lv e se ve ral is su es as am at te r of fed eral law, an d t he n we s et fo rth th e fac ts an d d is cu ss io n re le va ntto th e certi fie d que st io n.

The Rey nolds and L loyd defe ndants are plaintiffs in two underlying suits see king 1 damag es both pursuant to a wrong ful death action and a survivorship action. 3II. SUBJ ECT MATTER JURIS DICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on of t hi s de cl arat ory

jud gm en t caus e o f act io n a ndin te rp le ad er caus e o f act io n. With
res pe ctto th e in te rp le ad er caus e o f act io n, we co nc lu de as am at te r of fed eral law th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §1 33 5; we read il y rejectApp el la nt s’ arg um en t tha t the re i s n otsu ffi ci en t ad ve rs ity am on g t he cl ai m an ts forth e fu nd . W it h re sp ectto th e d ecl arat ory jud gm en t caus e o f act io n, we co nc lu de as am at te r of fed eral law t ha t the di st ric t co urt h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . The p art ie s ar e co m pl et el y di ve rs e an d we d is cern no erro r in th e di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e am ou ntin co nt ro ve rs y ex ceed s $ 75 ,00 0. App el la nt s’ ot he r juri sd ic ti on al ch al le ng es are re jecte d wi th ou t n eedforfurth er di sc us si on .
III. OTHER ISSUES GOVERNED BY FEDERAL L AW Inth e d is tri ctco urt an d a ga in on ap pe al , App el la nt s ar gu e th atth ere was a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factas t o wh ethe r th e In su ran ce Co m pa ny recei ve d t he in su red ’s pre m iu m

pa ym en t wh ic h was all eg ed ly m ai le d i n l at e Ju ne 20 06 , and whi chwou ldha ve av oi de d t he no n- paym en t p ro bl em an d the subs eque nt
can cel la ti on . For t he reas on s s etforth in th e d is tri ctco urt’s Au gu st8, 2 00 8, Ord er, 4un de r th e h ead in g “ The Mai lb ox Ru le ,” we rejectth is arg um en t. We ho ldth at

App el la nt s fa il edto ad du ce ev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto crea te a ge nu in e is su e o f fac t o n th atis su e; th us , th e fac ts of t he in st an t ca se are t ha t the pre m iu m was n ev er p ai d. Si m il arl y , App el la nt s’ rel ia nc e o n J oy Lietc h’s t es ti m on y to crea te a ge nu in e is su e as to whet he r th e Ju ly 10, 2 00 6, n ot ic e ex te nd edth e due da te to Ju ly 25, 2 00 6, i s fla wed . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Ap pe ll an ts ad du cedin su ffi ci en t
ev id en ce t o c reat e a g enui ne is su e o f fact ; thu s, the fact s o f th e cas e fo r th is ap pe al are t ha t the pre m iu m

was o ve rdue aft er J ul y

5, 2 00 6, an d t ha t the Ju ly 10, 2 00 6,
can cel la ti on no ti ce was sen t af te r th e p rem iu m

was o ve rdue . W e al so reject App el la nt s’ ot he r arg um en ts th atth ere a re g enui ne is su es of m at eri al fact
.
IV. FACTS AND DISCUSSION RELEVANT TO THE CERTIFIED QUESTION The is su e o f Geo rg iain su ran ce l aw to be cert ifi edis whet he r th e In su ran ce Co m pa ny effect iv el y

can cel le d t he po li cy . On o r aro un d J un e 1 5, 2 00 6, t he in su red
rece iv eda pa ym en t n ot ic e fro m th e In su ran ce Co m

pa ny, ind ic at in g t he pre m iu m du e an d t he du e d at e o f Ju ly 5, 20 06 . On Ju ly 10, 2 00 6, t he Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny se ntth e in su reda can cel la ti on no ti ce, wh ic h i nd ic at edth atth e p rem iu m in st al lm en t ha d n otbe enpa idan d t ha t h is in su ran ce co ve rag e wou ldceas e at11 :5 9 p .m . on th e can cel la ti on da te , Ju ly 25, 2 00 6, u nl es s t he pre m iu m pay m en t was rece iv edbe fo re 5th atcan cel la ti onda te . The J ul y 10 , 20 06 , no ti ce s et s o utth e can cel la ti on da te of Ju ly 25, 2 00 6, i n asep arat e b ox at t he to p o f th e n ot ic e, an d i n a no th er s ep arat e b ox atth e b ot to m

of t he no ti ce. The no ti ce co nt ai ne d t he fol lo win g l an gu ag e: YOU ARE HE REBY NOTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED POLICY, AND IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE L AW , THAT YOUR INSURANCE POLICY WILL CEASE AT 11 :5 9 P .M. ON THE CANCELLATION DA TE MENTIONED ABOVE, UNL ESS WE RECEIVE YOUR PAYMENT BEFORE THE CANCELL ATION DATE. IF THE PREMIUM AMOUNT LISTED O N THIS NOTICE IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY BEFORE THE CANCELL ATION DATE SPECIFIED, YOUR INSURANCE W ILL CEASE AT 11: 59 P.M. ON THAT D ATE. No p rem iu m

pa y m en t was rece iv edby the Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny. The is su e to be cert ifi edis whethe r th e Ju ly 10, 2 00 6, n ot ic e o pe rat edto can cel th e p ol ic y . If
so , th enth ere was no co ve rag e o f th e acc id en t atis su e in th e u nd erl y in g c as es whi choc cu rredonAug us t 2 , 20 06
. W e u nd ers ta ndth atth e rel ev an t p ro vi si on s o f th e Geo rg iast atut es are fo un d in Geor gi a Co de § 3 3- 24 -4 4, wh ic h p ro vi de s, i n re le va ntpa rt, t ha t aneffe ct iv e no ti ce o f can cel la ti on m

us t b e m ai le d a t l eas t t enda y s p rio r to th e eff ect iv e d at e o f
can cel la ti on . App el la nt s re ly upo n l an gu ag e in Pen ns y lv an iaNati on al Mu tu al Cas ua lt y Ins ur an ce v . Pers on , 29 7 S .E.2d80 , 82 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 82 ), st at in g: “ A

6no ti ce o f can cel la ti on whi ch st at es th ata po li cy wil l b e can cel le d o n asp eci fie d da te un le ss pre m iu m s due are p ai d p rio r to th atda te is no t a n ot ic e o f can cel la ti on , bu t m erel y

a de m an d fo r paym en t.” Ap pe ll an ts no te th atvi rtu al ly ide nt ic al la ng ua ge was i nc lu de d i n the lat er ca se of S ta te Farm Mu tu al Aut om ob il e In su ran ce Co . v. Dru ry , 47 4 S .E.2d64 , 68 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 96 ), to -wit : “ I ch arg e y outh ata no ti ce o f can cel la ti on whi ch st at es th ata po li cy wil l b e can cel le d o n a sp eci fie d d at e u nl es s p rem iu m s due are p ai d p rio r to th atda te is no t a n ot ic e o f
can cel la ti on , bu t m erel y

a de m an d fo r pa ym en t.” Onth e b as is of t he for eg oi ng la ng ua ge , App el la nt s ar gu e th atth e in st an t n ot ic e is no t ef fect iv e to can cel th e po li cy at i ss ue as o f Ju ly 25, 2 00 6. The Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny argu es th atth e la ng ua ge fro m th e fo reg oi ng cas es is di ct a, an d t ha t the ho ld in g o f bo th cas es is th atth e n ot ic e o f can cel la ti on was in effe ct iv e b ecau se itwas g iv enbe fo re the pre m iu m was due . See Per so n, 2 97 S.E.2dat 8 2 (“ Inth e in st an t ca se , th e n ot ic e o f can cel la ti on was n otgi ve n t o t he in su redup on he r fai lu re t o p ay th e p rem iu m

when du e, rat he r th e n ot ic e o f
can cel la ti on was g iv enbe fo re the pre m iu m was due .”) (em

ph as is in ori gi na l); Drury , 47 4 S .E.2dat 6 7 (“ As i n P ers on , th e n ot ic e o f can cel la ti on was n otgi ve n t o Drury up on hi s fa il ur e to pa y

th e p rem iu m

‘ whe n due .’
. . . The Octo be r 25 no ti ce of can cel la ti onwas i ne ffec ti ve be cau se th e p rem iu m was n oty et‘ du e.’”). The
7In su ran ce Co m pa ny als o a rg ue s t ha t, und er § 33 -2 4- 44 , th e can cel la ti on can no t b e effe ct iv e fo r atlea stten day s af te r th e n ot ic e o f can cel la ti on is gi ve n. Th e In su ran ce Co m

pa ny argu es th atth e o bv io us pu rp os e o f th e st atut e is to pro vi de th e in su redwith a n o pp ortu ni ty to m ak e th e p rem iu m pay m en t an d k eep th e p ol ic y in fo rce, o r to m ak e o th er i ns ur an ce arran ge m en ts . Accor di ng ly, th e In su ran ce Co m pa ny argu es th atco m

pl ia nc e wit h t he st atut e requi res gi vi ng th e in su redth e op po rtu ni ty to p ay

th e p rem iu m

withi n t he ten -d ay

ti m e p eri odan d k eep th e p ol ic y in for ce. Thu s, the Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny argu es th atth e la ng ua ge qu ot edab ov e fro m Pers on an d Dru ry

can no t b e sq ua redwith t he pu rp os e o f th e st atut e, is di ct a, an d m us t b en d t o the st atut e it se lf. In supp ort, the Ins ur an ce Co m pany cit es So ut he rnIns . Co. v . W al ke r, 36 1 S .E.2d50 2, 5 03 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 87 ) (“ The fact th atth e n ot ic e o f can cel la ti on lef t o pe n t he po ss ib il ity

of r ei ns ta te m en t o f th e po li cy di d n otin va li da te th atcan cel la ti on no ti ce.”) . If App el la nt s’ po si ti on were co rrec t, the Ins ur an ce Co m pany argu es , any canc el la ti onno ti ce tha t co m pl ie s wi th th e te n- da y

st atut ory pe rio d wi ll be in effe ct iv e, ren de rin g c an cel la ti on im po ss ib le
as a pr act ic al m at te r. Bec au se we pe rcei ve no cle ar, co nt ro ll in g p rece de ntin th e d eci si on s o f th e Geo rg iaco urts , andbe cau se th e p red ic tabi li ty of th e la w is pa rti cu la rly im po rta ntin th is area , we cert ify the fol lo win g que st io n o f la w to th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia
8fo r in st ru ct io ns :

IS A NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, PROPERLY GIVEN AFTER THE PREMIUM IS PAST DUE, INE FFECTIVE BECAUSE IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INSURED TO KEEP THE POLICY IN FORCE BY PAYING THE PAST-DUE PREMI UM W ITHIN THE STAT UTORY TEN-DAY PERIOD? Incert ifyin g t hi s que st io n, we d o n otin te ndth e p art ic ul ar p hr as in g o f itto li m itth e co urt i n i ts co ns id erat io n o f th e p ro bl em po se d b y th e cas e. Inord er t o as si stth e co urt’s co ns id erat io n o f th e cas e, th e en ti re re co rd , alo ng with the bri efs of th e p art ie s, s ha ll be tra ns m it te d t o t he co urt. QUESTION CERTIFIED.

9