FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J ULY 1, 2 010
J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 10 52 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 8- cv -0 01 65 -WL S

BURT COMP ANY, The, ALBANY LIME & CEMENT COMPANY, BURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, H. PACE BURT, JR., Tru st ee o f Hot el Trus t, HILLIARD P. BURT,

Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,

ve rs us

CLARENDON NAT IONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 1, 2 01 0)

Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff s The Bu rt Co m

pa ny, Alb an y Lim e & Cem en t C o m pa ny, Bu rt

Dev el op m en t Co m

pa ny, H. Pace Bu rt, Jr
., an d Hil li ard P. Bu rt pu rch as ed a ho m e in

Atl an ta , Ga. The y a r r a n g e d f or a co nt ract or to pe rfo rm m ajor ren ov at io ns to th e

ho m e, an d on ce reno va ti on s were co m pl et e, so ld th e ho m e to Deb or ah an d Mic ha el

Drap er. Afte r cl os in g on th e ho m e an d di sc ov eri ng co ns tru ct io n de fect s, th e Drap ers

fil ed su it ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff s and a co nt ract or , as se rti ng a cl ai m fo r br each of co nt ract

am on g ot he rs

. Pl ai nt iff

s ha d an oc cu rren ce on ly co m m erci al ge ne ral li ab il it y po li cy

wit h Defen da nt C l a r e n do n Nati on al In su ran ce Co m pa ny. The y req ue st ed th at

Cl aren do n de fen d/ in de m ni f y t h e m in th e Drap er act io n, bu t Cl aren do n de ni ed

co ve rag e. The Drap er act io n was ul ti m at el y res ol ve d th ro ug h a se tt le m en t; Pl ai nt iff s

co nt rib ut ed $1 00 ,00 0 t o c on su m m at e th e se tt le m en t.

Pl ai nt iff s fil ed th is act io n ag ai ns t Cl aren do n in th e Su pe rio r C o ur t of

Dou gh ert y Co un ty, Geo rg ia
, se ek in g a jud gm en t de cl ari ng th at as Cl aren do n’s

in su red s, th ey are en ti tl ed t o reco up lo ss es th ey su st ai ne d as a res ul t of th e Drap er

act io n. In vo ki ng th e co ur t’s di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , Cl aren do n rem ov ed th e cas e to th e

Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Geo rg ia
, an d Pl ai nt iff s m ov ed

to rem an d th e cas e on th e gr ou nd s th at th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t of 28

U.S.C. § 13 32 was no t sa ti sf ie d. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. The reaf te r,

Pl ai nt iff s fil ed a m ot io n to am en d th ei r co m pl ai nt an d a m ot io n to st ay , ur gi ng th e

2co ur t to rev ie w a dd it io na l fact s th a t c o u l d d ep riv e it of juri sd ic ti on , a nd Cl aren do n

m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm e n t

. Th e co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n to am en d, de ni ed th e

m ot io n to st ay as m oo t, an d gr an te d Cl aren do n su m m ary jud gm en t b e c a u s e i t he ld

th at un de r th e te rm s of th e in su r a n c e p o l i cy , Cl aren do n ha d no du ty to

de fen d/ in de m

ni fy Pla in ti ffs in th e Drap er ac ti on . Plai nt iff s ap pe al

.

Pl ai nt iff s arg ue th at sum

m ary jud gm en t m

us t be va cat ed an d th e cas e rem an de d

to st at e co ur t be cau se th e cas e in vo lv e s an in su ffi ci en t am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y to

su st ai n fed eral di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on

. In th e al te rn at iv e, Pl ai nt iff s arg ue th at th e co ur t

erre d in ho ld in g th a t C l aren do n ha d no du ty to de fen d/ in de m ni fy Pl ai nt iff

s in th e

Drap er act io n, an d su m

m ary jud gm en t sh ou ld be rev ers ed

. Afte r rev ie w of th e reco rd
,

we co nc lu de th at th es e arg um en ts are wi th ou t m eri t.

W e m eas ur e th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y on th e da te on whi ch th e co ur t’s

di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on is fir st i n v o k e d
, i n t h is cas e on th e da te of rem ov al

. The

co m pl ai nt fil ed wit h Cl aren do n’s no ti ce of rem ov al as se rts cl a i ms f o r: (1 )

co nt rib ut io n to th e $1 00 ,00 0 Drap er se tt le m en t of fs et by an un s p e c i f

i e d cred it du e

Defen da nt s fo r su m s ob ta in ed fro m an ot he r in su ran ce co m pa ny; (2 ) th e $4 5,0 00 co st

of de fen di ng th e Drap er act io n; (3 ) a pe na lt y pu rs ua nt to O.C.G.A. § 33 -4 -6 ; an d (4 )

at to rn ey ’s f

ees fo r th e in st an t ac ti on . W hi le th e co m pl ai nt ass ert ed th at th e am ou nt

in co nt ro ve rs y is $7 0,0 00
, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e act ua l am ou nt ex ceed ed th e

3$7 5,0 00 req ui rem en t of 28 U.S.C. § 13 32

. (R.2 -3 1 at 5.) Afte r rev ie w of th e reco rd
,

we ag ree. Pl ai nt iff

s la te r fil ed an am en de d co m pl ai nt , whi ch rem ov ed cert ai n cl ai m s,

an d th ey arg ue on ap pe al th at th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y is $6 2,5 00

. The ir cal cu la ti on

ad ds on ly th e cl ai m fo r co nt rib ut io n to th e Drap er se tt le m en t an d on e-h al f th e co st of

de fen di ng th e Drap er acti on

. Bu t, even ts oc cu rri ng aft er re m ov al , su ch as t he po st

rem ov al am en dm en t of a co m pl ai nt to rem ov e cert ai n cl ai m s, whi ch m ay red uc e th e

da m ag es reco ve rab le be lo w th e am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t, do no t di ve st th e

di st ric t co ur t of juri sd ic ti on

. Poo re v. Ameri ca n- Amica bl e Li

fe In s. Co

. , 21 8 F.3 d

12 87
, 12 90 -9 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ) o v e r r u le d in pa rt on ot he r gr ou nd s in Alva re

z v.

Uni ro ya l Ti re Co

. , 5 0 8 F .3d 63 9, 64 0- 41 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng co ur t erre d in

rel y in g on am en de d co m pl ai nt to co nc lu de th e pa rti es di d no t m eet th e am ou nt in

co nt ro ve rs y req ui rem en t). W e i n cl ud e in ou r cal cu la ti on th e am ou nt of al l cl ai m s

as se rte d in th e ve rs io n of th e co m pl ai nt on th e da te of rem ov al an d co nc lu de th at th e

am ou nt in co nt ro ve rs y ex ceed s $7 5,0 00

. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at th e co ur t di d no t

err i n e xe rci si ng di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on in th is cas e.

Pl ai nt iff s al so arg ue th at th e co ur t erre d in ho ld in g th at Cl aren do n ha d no du ty

to de fen d/ in de m

ni fy Pl ai nt iff

s un de r th e in su ran ce po li cy

. The po li cy pr ov id es th at

Cl aren do n wil l pa y da m ag es an d/ or de fen d cl ai m s br ou gh t ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff s ari si ng

fro m an “ oc cu rren ce.” It de fin es “ oc cu rren ce” as “ an acci de nt , in cl ud in g co nt in uo us

4or rep eat ed ex po su re to su bs ta nt ia ll y th e sa m e ge ne ral ha rm fu l co nd it io ns .” (R.1 -1 8

Ex. B at 12 .) “ Acci de nt ” is no t de fin ed in th e po li cy , bu t un de r Geo rg ia la w it m ean s

“ an ev en t whi ch ta ke s pl ace wit ho ut on e’s f o r e si gh t or ex pe ct at io n or de si gn .”

O.C.G.A. § 1- 3- 3( 2)

. The co m pl ai nt in th e Drap er act io n as se rte d cl ai m s fo r br each

of co nt ract , frau d, refu sa l to res ci nd co nt ract , st ub bo rn li ti gi ou sn es s, an d en ti tl em en t

to pu ni ti ve da m ag es , cl ai m s aris in g fr om all eg ed fau lt y wor km an sh ip an d des ig n in

th e rem od el in g of th e ho m e. (R.1 -1 at Ex. A. ) Afte r rev ie w of th e reco rd
, we ag ree

wit h th e co ur t’s an al y si s on pa ge s el ev en th ro ug h si xt een of it s or de r, co nc lu di ng th at

th e Drap er act io n di d no t in vo lv e al le ga ti on s of an “ acci de nt , ” a n d th ere was no

“ oc cu rren ce” un de r th e te rm s of th e in su ran ce po li cy. ( R.2 -3 1.) The refo re,

Cl aren do n ha d no du ty to de fen d or in de m ni fy Pl ai nt iff

s in th e Drap er act io n an d was

en ti tl ed to su m

m ary jud gm en t.

AFFIR MED.

5