FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 80 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 35 12 -CAP SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us RICHARD PURSLEY, etc., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt , SHERYL SIMP SON-J ONES, in di vi du al ly andas t he pe rs on al adm in is tra to r of th e Est at e o f Ch ris to ph er E. Jo ne s, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 10 , 20 12 )Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Sco tt sd al e In su ran ce Co m pa ny (Scot ts da le ) se ek s a d ecl arat ory jud gm en t th atitha s n o dut y

to de fen d o r in de m

ni fy Defen da ntRic ha rdPurs le y inan un de rlyin g wro ng fu l d eath l aws ui t fi le d a ga in sthi m inGeor gi a St at e Co urt b y Defen da ntSh eryl Sim

ps on -J on es . On May

18 , 20 11 , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d Sco tt sd al e’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( c) fi nd in g t ha t the “ Po ll ut io n Ex cl us io n” claus e p recl ud edco ve rag e an d t ha t d im in ut io n o f va lu e d oe s n otco ns ti tu te pro pe rty dam ag e as de fin edby the Co m m erci al Gene ral Liab il ity (CGL) in su ran ce p ol ic y . Sim ps on -J on es ti m el y ap pe al edth atord er. Afte r rev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt o rd er an d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs we rev ers e in pa rt andaffi rm inpa rt t he ord er.

I. The un de rlyin g l aws ui t ag ai ns t Ri ch ardPurs le y , who di edon Feb ru ary 20 , 20 11 , in vo lv es cla im s fo r wro ng fu l d eath a ndpro pe rty dam ag e b y Sim ps on -J on es an d c la im s o n b eh al f of

th e Est at e o f Ch ris to ph er J on es , Sim ps on -J on es ’s lat e hu sb an d. Acco rd in g t o a ll eg at io ns inth atcas e, Mr. J on es hi redMr. Pu rs le y to m ak e rep ai rs onhi s b oa t. Whenm ak in g t he rep ai rs , Mr. Pu rs le y ne gl ect edto co ve r th e ex haus ts forth e st arb oa rden gi ne . Whi le th e rep ai rs were o ng oi ng , Mr. 2Jo ne s s tay edov ern ig hton th e b oa t an d u se d age ne rat orto po wer the air

co nd it io ne r. The n ex t m orni ng , Mr. Jo ne s was fou ndde ceas edne xtto hi s b ed . Hig h l ev el s o f car

bo n m on ox id e in hi s b lo odwas fo un d t o b e th e cau se of d eath. Late r itwas d et erm in edth atth e unc ov eredex haus t v en ts em it te d c arb on m on ox id e in to th e cab in vi a th e ai r co nd it io ne r. The u nd erl y in g s ui t co nt ai ns al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t o th er d efen da nt s b as edon a de si gn de fectan d n eg li ge ntrep ai rs to th e ai r co nd it io ne r. Ri ch ardPurs le y

bo ug htth e CGL fro m

Sco tt sd al e to co ve r li ab il it ie s ar is in g be twee n Jun e 3 , 20 08 to Ju ne 30 , 20 09 . Und er the CGL, Sco tt sd al e ag reedto pa y da m ag es th e in su redin cu rs rel at in g t o b od il y in jury or pr op erty

da m ag e, subjec t t o cert ai n t erm s, co nd it io ns , li m it at io ns , andex cl us io ns . One o f th e p ol ic y ex cl us io ns is co m

m on ly referre d t o a s the “ Po ll ut io n Ex cl us io n.” The Po ll ut io n Exc lu si on ex cl ud es fro m

co ve rag e an y

“ [b ]odi ly injury

or p ro pe rty dam ag e ari si ng ou t o f th e actua l, al le ge d o r th reat en eddi sc ha rg e, di sp ers al , see pa ge , m ig rat io n, rel eas e o r es cap e o f po ll ut an ts : [a ]t or fr om an y pre m is es , si te or l oc at io n wh ic h i s orwas a t an y

ti m e o wne d o r oc cupi edby, orren te d o r lo an edto , any ins ur ed .” The parti es di sa gr ee as to whethe r: ( 1) th e Po ll ut io n Ex cl us io n i s ap pl ic ab le he re; an d (2 ) th e d im in ut io n o f va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty is i nc lu de d i n t he de fin it io n o f

“pr op erty da m ag e” i n t he CGL. 3II.

Ru le 12 (c) p erm it s ju dg m en t o n t he pl ead in gs when th ere are n o m at eri al fact s i n d is pu te an d ju dg m en t m ay be ren de redby con si de rin g the subs ta nc e o f th e pl ead in gs an d a ny j ud ic ia ll y no ti cedfact s. F E D . R. C IV . P. 12 (c); Hor sl ey v. Rive ra , 29 2 F .3d69 5, 7 00 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). In m ak in g aRu le 12 (c) ju dg m en t, we acce ptall all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d c on st ru e th em inth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Ca nn on v. Cit y o f W. Palm Beac h , 25 0 F .3d 12 99 , 13 01 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on on a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs un de r Ru le 12 (c) de no vo . Id. Fo r cas es fou nd edon di ve rs ity juri sd ic ti on , we app ly the for um st at e’s ch oi ce-o f-l aw ru le s. Fed er at ed Rur al Elec . Ins . Exch . v. R.D. Moo dy&Ass oc s., In c. , 46 8 F .3d13 22 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m). The p art ie s ag ree t ha t the fo ru m st at e is Geor gi a. InGeor gi a, th e in te rp ret at io n o f in su ran ce co nt ract s i s go ve rn edby the law o f th e p la ce o f m ak in g, wh ic h i s the pl ace wh ere t he co nt ract is de li ve red . Se e Bitumi no us Ca s. Co rp . v. Adva nc ed Adh es iv e Tec h., In c. , 73 F.3d 33 5, 3 37 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Here the co ntractwas d el iv eredinGeor gi a, whe re Mr . Purs le y co nduc te d h is bu si ne ss ; the refo re, Geo rg ialaw ap pl ie s. InGeor gi a, in su ran ce p ol ic ie s ar e in te rp ret edus in g t he ord in ary ru le s o f co nt ractco ns tru ct io n. Bit umi no us Ca s. Co rp . , 73 F.3dat 3 37 . Gener al ly, Geo rg ia 4law perm it s i ns ur an ce co m pa ni es to setth e te rm s o f th ei r po li ci es “ so lo ng as t he y do no t v io la te th e la w or ju di ci al ly cog ni zab le publ ic po li cy .” Reed v. Aut oOwn er s In s. Co . , 66 7 S .E.2d90 , 91 (Ga. 20 08 ). Furth erm or e, “ [w]here the co nt ractua l l an gu ag e unam bi gu ou sl y go ve rn s the factua l s cen ari o b efo re the co urt, th e co urt’s job is si m

pl y to ap pl y th e te rm s o f th e co ntractas wri tt en , reg ard le ss of whe th er d oi ng so be ne fit s the carr ie r or th e in su red .” Id. at 9 2. Ho wev er, Geo rg ia law li be ral ly con st ru es in suran ce p ol ic ie s i n fa vo r of co ve rag e an d “ th e co nd it io ns an d p ro vi si on s o f co nt ract s o f in su ran ce wi ll be stric tl y co ns tru edag ai ns t the in su rer wh o p rep ares su chco nt ract s.” Bar re tt v. Na ti on al

Uni on Fir e In s. Co . , 69 6 S .E.2d32 6, 3 20 (Ga. App . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Har tf ord C as . Ins . Co. v. S

mith , 60 3 S .E.2d29 8, 3 01 (Ga. App . 20 04 )). III. Here, Sc ot ts da le arg ue s, an d t he di st ric t co urt ag reed , th at Reed is co nt ro ll in g. In Reed

th e Geo rg iaSupr em e Co urt i nt erp ret eda si m il ar Po ll ut io n Exc lu si on claus e whe n aren te r su edhe r la nd lo rd(th e in su red ) fo r car bo n m on ox id e p oi so ni ng du e to th e la nd lo rd ’s all eg edfai lu re t o k eep th e ren ta l h ou se in go odrep ai r. W e g le anth ree c ru ci al fact or s fr om Reed : (1 ) th e in su redown ed th e p ro pe rty; (2 ) th ere was a carb on m on ox id e le ak ; an d (3 ) car bo n m on ox id e was a p ol lu tantun de r th e p ol ic y . Reed , 28 4 Ga. at28 8. Th e co urt h el d t ha t the pl ai n 5lang ua ge ex cl ud edth e ren te r’s cl ai m ag ai ns t the in su ran ce co m pa ny. Si m ps on -J on es po in ts ou t tha t the Po ll ut io n Ex cl us io n i n que st io n h ere o nl y ap pl ie s i f th e p ol lu tantlea ks “ ator f ro m an y pre m is es , si te or l oc at io n wh ic h i s o r was at anytim e ow ne d o r o ccu pi ed byor ren te d o r l oa ne d t o a nyin su re d .” (em ph as is ad de d) . It i s cl ear f ro m th e rec or d t ha t the bo atwher e Mr. J on es di ed was no t o wne d b y

Mr. Pu rs le y , th e in su red . Add it io na ll y Mr. J on es was n ot in su redby Scot ts da le . Thu s, the Po ll ut io n Ex cl us io n d oe s n otba r Si m ps on -J on es ’ cl ai m s. IV. Si m ps on -J on es als o m ak es a pr op erty dam ag e cl ai m

inth e und erl y in g s ui t. Sh e cl ai m s a d im in ut io n o f va lu e o f th e b oa t b ecau se sh e m us t d is cl os e to po te nt ia l bu y ers th atth e b oa t h as a fau lty ex haus t s y st em . The CGL unam bi gu ou sl y st at es , in pe rti ne ntpa rt, tha t “pr op erty da m ag e” co ve redun de r th e in su ran ce co nt ract in cl ud es “ [p ]hy si cal in

jury to t an gi bl e p ro pe rty, inc lu di ng all res ul ti ng lo ss of u se of th atpro pe rty [or] [l]os s o f us e o f ta ng ib le pro pe rty tha t i s n otph y si cal ly in jure d.” There fo re, the CGL do es no t co nt em pl at e co ve rag e o f a d im in is he d va lu e cl ai m . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d S co tt sd al e’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs as t o t he pro pe rty dam ag e cl ai m . IV. 6W e rev ers e th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co urt t o g ran t Sc ot ts da le ’s m ot io n fo r

jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs reg ard in g t he Po ll ut io n Ex cl us io n. We affi rm th e g ran t of Sco tt sd al e’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs on th e d im in ut io n o f va lu e o f pr op erty cla im . W e rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith thi s o pi ni on . REVERSED I N PART, AF FIRMED I N PART, AND REMANDED.

7