FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 86 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 17 45 -ODE ASPHALT REFINING & TECHNOLOGY COMP ANY, LL C, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LON DON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 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 26 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andBUCKLEW , Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Asp ha ltRefi ni ng & Tech no lo gy Com pa ny, L LC (“ Asp ha lt ”), ap pe al s a Honora ble Susan C. Buc klew, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation.se rie s o f or de rs en te redby the di st ric t co urt i n fa vo r of it s p ro pe rty ins ur an ce carr ie r, Und erwri te rs at Ll oyd’s Lon do n (“ Llo y d’s” ). Forth e fo ll owi ng reas on s, we affi rm . I. Asp ha lt , a m anuf

actur er an d m ark et er o f as ph al t fo r pa vi ng an d ro of in g, be ga n o pe rat in g i n 2 00 5 a ndis lo cat edon th e fo rm er s it e o f anoi l re fin ery. Asp ha ltha d v ari ou s t an ks an d e qu ip m en t o n i ts pro pe rty tha t wer e p rev io us ly use d as pa rt o f th e o il refi ne ry , andAsp ha ltrefu rb is he d s ix te enof t he m forit s o wn u se . On Dec em

be r 1, 2 00 6, af

te r so m e n eg ot ia ti on s b etweenth e p art ie s’ bro ke rs , Asp ha ltan d Ll oyd’s en te redin to anin suran ce b in de r. On Dece m be r 13 , 20 06 , an ex pl os io n a ndfir e cau se d d am ag e to cert ai n t an ks , bu il di ng s, an d e qu ip m en t o n Asp ha lt ’s pro pe rty. T he ne xtday Llo y d’s i ss ue d a n i ns ur an ce p ol ic y co ve rin g Asp ha lt ’s pro pe rty, with aneffe ct iv e d at e o f Decem be r 1, 2 00 6, the da te of t he bi nd er. Altho ug h the is su an ce o f th e p ol ic y po st -d at es th e lo ss , in su ran ce b in de rs

“ in cl ud e al l the us ua l t erm s o f th e p ol ic y as t o wh ic h t he bi nd er was gi ve n . . . .” O.C.G.A § 33 -2 4- 33 . The pa rti es ag ree t he effe ct iv e d at e o f th e p ol ic y was Decem be r 1, 2 00 6, an d t he fir e was a “ Co ve redCau se of Lo ss ” as th e te rm is de fin edinth e p ol ic y . The p ol ic y co nt ai ne d aco in su ran ce p en al ty clau se . Lloyd’s ap pl ie d t he co in su ran ce p en al ty clau se an d re fu se d t o p ay Asp ha lt ’s cla im

un de r th e 2po li cy

inful l. The co re o f th e p art ie s’ di sp ut e is whet he r Asp ha lt ’s cov erag e fo r “ Tanks & Equ ip m en t” was m ean t t o app ly to al l t an ks on Asp ha lt ’s pro pe rty or t o o nl y th e si xt een tan ks inus e. If o nl y th e si xt eenrefu rb is he d t an ks were i ns ur ed , a co m pl et el y di ffer en t, an d fa r sm al le r, co in su ran ce p en al ty w ou ldap pl y . The pa rti es fil edcro ss m ot io ns forparti al su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co urt re vi eweda gr eatde al of e vi de nc e subm it te d b y Asp ha ltbu t u lt im at el y co nc lu de d t ha t the term

“ tank s” is un am

bi gu ou s an d g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Ll oyd’s, ho ld in g t ha t “ Llo y d’s was co nt ract edto in su re al l o f th e ta nk s o n Asp ha lt ’s pro pe rty at th e ti m e o f th e fi re.” The refo re, the di st ric t co urt ru le d t ha t an y ev id en ce s ub m it te d b y

Asp ha ltto sh ow the parti es in te nd ed16 tan ks to be co ve redco ns ti tu te d i na dm is sabl e p aro l ev id en ce an d c ou ldno t b e u se d t o m od ify th e co nt ract . Asp ha ltap pe al s, ar gu in g t ha t s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Llo y d’s was in ap pr op ria te be cau se th e te rm “ ta nk s” is am

bi gu ou s. As ph al t al so m ak es two ot he r arg um en ts ; n ei th er i s m eri to rio us , andwe ad dr es s the m bri efl y be lo w. II. W e rev ie w a gr an t o r de ni al of s umm ary jud gm en t de no vo , con st ru in g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov an t. W es tc hest er

Sp eci al tyIns . Se rvs., In c. v. U.S. Fir e In s. Co . , 11 9 F .3d15 05 , 15 09 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Summ ary 3jud gm en t i s p ro pe r whe n t he re i s n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t

is en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Se e Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a). Bec au se we ha ve di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on ov er thi s ca se , se e 28 U.S.C. § 13 32 (a), we m

us t ap pl y Geor gi a la w inco ns tru in g t he in su ran ce co nt ract . Eri e R.R. Co. v. To mpkin s , 30 4 U.S. 6 4, 7 9 (1 93 8) ; Am. Famil y Li fe Ass ur an ce Co . v. U.S. Fir e Co . , 88 5 F .2d82 6, 8 30 (11 thCir . 19 89 ) (“ Und er Geo rg iach oi ce-o f-l aw ru le s, i nt erp ret at io n o f in su ran ce co nt ract s i s g ov ern edby the law o f th e p la ce o f m ak in g.” ). Und er Geo rg ialaw, an in su ran ce p ol ic y is go ve rn edby the ord in ary ru le s o f co ntractco ns tru ct io n. Boa rd man Petr ol eu m v. Fede ra te d Mu t. In s. Co . , 49 8 S .E.2d49 2, 4 94 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 98 ) . Abs en t am bi gu it y , con st ru ct io n o f a writ te n c on tra ctis a qu es ti on of l aw fo r th e tr ia l co urt. W il ba nk s v. Ma i , 50 1 S.E.2d51 3, 5 14 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 98 ). III. Asp ha ltco nt en ds th atsu m m ary jud gm en t fo r Llo y d’s was in ap pr op ria te be cau se th e “ su m

m ary jud gm en t ev id en ce, atth e le as t, cr eat es am bi gu it y an d a qu es ti on of f

actreg ard in g t he in te nt io n o f th e p art ie s co nc ern in g wh ic h ‘tan ks ’ were i nt en de d t o b e in suredby the in su ran ce co nt ract .” W e d is ag ree.

“ Am bi gu it y ” in a co nt ractis de fin edas dup li ci ty, in di st in ctne ss , or un cert ai nty

of m ean in g o r ex pr es si on . Ta yl or v. Est es , 70 S.E.2d82 , 84 (Ga. Ct . 4App . 19 52 ) (ci ti ng an ot he r so ur ce). Where a te rm or p hr as e o f anin su ran ce co nt ractis “ su sc ep ti bl e o f two or m or e co ns tru ct io ns , eve n wh enth e m ul ti pl e co ns tru ct io ns are al l l og ic al an d re as on ab le , itis am bi gu ou s . . . .” Hur

st v. Gra ng e Mu t. Ca s. Co . , 47 0 S .E.2d65 9, 6 63 (Ga. 19 96 ). “ Und er Geo rg iarul es of co nt ractin te rp ret at io n, wo rd s i n aco ntractge ne ral ly bear t he ir u su al an d c omm on m ean in g.” Clau ss en v. Aetn a C as . &Su r. Co . , 38 0 S .E.2d68 6, 6 87 –8 8 (Ga . 19 89 ) (ci ti ng O.C.G.A. § 13 -3 -2 (2) ). An i ns ur an ce b in de r is no t a m ere o fferbu t i s i ts el f a co nt ractof i ns ur an ce, te m po rary in n atur e, “ in te nd edto tak e th e p la ce o f anord in ary po li cy un ti l the sa m e can be is su ed .” Jo ur da n v . Fir st Na t’l Ins . Co. , 41 6 S .E.2d16 2, 1 62 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 92 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (ci ti ng an d quo ti ng an ot he r so ur ce). Whi le “ th e h al lm arkof c on tra ctco ns tru ct io n i s t o a sc ert ai n t he in te nt io n o f th e pa rti es ,” whe re “ th e te rm s o f a wri tt enco nt ractare cl ear a ndun am bi gu ou s, the co urt i s t o l oo k t o t he co nt ractalo ne to [de te rm in e] the pa rti es ’ in te nt .” Park ‘N Go v. U.S. Fid. &Gua r. Co . , 47 1 S .E.2d50 0, 5 03 (Ga. 19 96 ). The m ean in g o f th e te rm

“ ta nk s” is pl ai n a ndob vi ou s. Nei th er the bi nd er no r th e si gn edin su ran ce ap pl ic at io n c on ta in an y qu al ifyin g l an gu ag e sp eci fy in g ho w man y ta nk s, o r wh ic h tan ks , were i ns ur ed . Bot h o f th es e d oc um en ts —the bi nd er an d s ig ne d i ns ur an ce ap pl ic at io n— sp eci fie d t ha t co ve rag e was for“ Tan ks 5& Equ ip m en t.” Itwou ldbe im po ss ib le to co ns tru e th e wri tt enterm “ ta nk s” as m ean in g o nl y

“ si xt een tan ks ” wit ho utres orti ng to paro l ev id en ce. Bu t p aro l ev id en ce i s i na dm is si bl e to crea te anam bi gu it y wher e n on e ex is ts . Perr et t v. Dol la rd , 33 8 S .E.2d56 , 57 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 85 ). The d is tri ctco urt fo un d the re i s on ly one reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f th e te rm “ ta nk s,” a ndon de no vo rev ie w, co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Asp ha lt , we agr ee. IV. Asp ha ltne xtarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Asp ha lt ’s m ot io n t o a m en d i ts co m pl ai ntto ad d acla im

forequi tabl e refo rm at io n of th e in su ran ce co nt ract . W e d is ag ree b ecau se Asp ha ltm ov edto am en d m or e th anon e y ear a fte r th e d ead li ne forfil in g a m en dm en ts setby the co urt i n i ts sc he du li ng ord er, wel l af

te r th e cl os e o f di sc ov ery, an d a fte r th e co urt g ran te d Llo y d’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t. Se e Lo we’s Home Ctr s., In c. v. Oli n C or p. , 31 3 F .3d13 07 , 13 15 (11 thCir . 20 02 ) (“ [I]t is no t anab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r a d is tri ctco urt t o d en y a m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d fo ll owi ng th e cl os e o f di sc ov ery, pa stth e d ead li ne foram en dm en ts an d p as t the de ad li ne for fil in g d is po si ti ve m ot io ns .”). Mo reo ve r, Asp ha ltfai le d t o d em on strat e “ go od cau se ” to am en d the sch edul in g o rd er as requi redby Fed. R. Ci v. P. 1 6( b) (4 ) be cau se itwas a ware o f th e p red ic at e fac ts supp orti ng equi tabl e ref orm at io n l on g 6be fo re the de ad li ne for am en dm en ts . Se e S. Gr ou ts &Mor ta rs , Inc . v. 3M Co . , 57 5 F .3d12 35 , 12 41 n.3 (11 thCir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m) (n ot in g t ha t the “ go od cau se st an da rdpre cl ud es m od ifi cat io n u nl es s the sch edul e can no t b e m etde sp it e th e d il ig en ce o f th e p arty see ki ng th e ex te ns io n” ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) .

V. Fi na ll y , Asp ha ltco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y refu si ng to letitch an ge it s the ory of r eco ve ry . Thro ug h p le ad in gs an d d is co ve ry , Asp ha ltpro ceed edun de r a rep la cem en t-c os t the ory . Then , th ree d ay s b efo re tria l, Asp ha ltalt eredit s ar gu m en t t o t ha t o f anactua l-c as h- va lu e th eo ry . Lloyd’s fi le d a pr etria l m ot io n t o b ar As ph al t fr om ass ert in g a n a ctua l-c as h- va lu e th eo ry of reco ve ry at t ria l, wh ic h t he co urt g ran te d. Asp ha ltpre se nt edno ex cu se forit s ta rd in es s i n i de nt ifyin g t hi s al te rn at e th eo ry , andall owi ng Asp ha ltto ch an ge it s th eo ry of r eco ve ry

wou ldha ve pre

jud ic edLlo y d’s. Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n g ran ti ng Llo y d’s m ot io n. VI. Fo r th e fo rg oi ng reas on s, we af firm . AFFIRMED.

7