[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10266

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:12-cv-00191-BAE-GRS

FCCI INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MCLENDON ENTERPRISES, INC.,

BROOKS LAMAR MITCHELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(September 3, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-10266 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, 

PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. § 15-2-9. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF 

GEORGIA AND ITS HONORABLE JUSTICES:

This case arises from an automobile collision between a vehicle driven by 

Brooks Lamar Mitchell in his capacity as an employee of McLendon Enterprises, 

Inc. (McLendon) and an Evans County school bus. The district court, applying 

Georgia law, determined that Mitchell could recover under McLendon’s policy 

with FCCI Insurance Co., which promised to pay sums he was “legally entitled to 

recover” from an uninsured motorist. The district court found that Mitchell could 

make a claim under this provision even though Evans County’s partial sovereign 

immunity prevented Mitchell from establishing in a lawsuit that he was legally 

entitled to recover the full amount of his damages from Evans County.

To reach this decision, the district court looked to Tinsley v. Worldwide Ins. 

Co., 442 S.E.2d 877, 878-79 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994), for guidance. In Tinsley, the 

Georgia Court of Appeals held that an insured couple could maintain a claim under

their uninsured-motorist coverage notwithstanding the complete sovereign 

immunity of the party that injured them (i.e., the tortfeasor) and their resulting 

inability to establish in court that they were “legally entitled to recover” from that 

party. The Tinsley court reasoned that where it was impossible for an insured party 

Case: 14-10266 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

to ever obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor, allowing the insurer to escape 

liability based on the insured’s failure to do so would defeat the intent and purpose 

of Georgia’s Uninsured Motorist Act. Id. at 879.

Unlike in Tinsley, however, the tortfeasor in the instant case was entitled to 

only partial sovereign immunity, so it was not impossible for the insured party to 

ever obtain a judgment against it. The district court stated that it “[found] Tinsley

persuasive and extend[ed] its sound reasoning to tortfeasors who are partially 

protected by sovereign immunity.” However, neither the Georgia Supreme Court 

nor the Georgia Court of Appeals has addressed this situation, and this appeal 

therefore hinges on an issue of Georgia law for which no clear, controlling 

precedent exists.

“When substantial doubt exists about the answer to a material state law 

question upon which the case turns, a federal court should certify that question to 

the state supreme court in order to avoid making unnecessary state law guesses and 

to offer the state court the opportunity to explicate state law.” Forgione v. Dennis 

Pirtle Agency, Inc., 93 F.3d 758, 761 (11th Cir. 1996). We conclude that this is an 

appropriate step to take in the instant case. Accordingly, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 

§ 15-2-9(a), we respectfully certify the following question to the Supreme Court of 

Georgia:

Can an insured party recover under an uninsured-motorist insurance 

policy providing that the insurer will pay sums “the insured is legally 

Case: 14-10266 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

entitled to recover as compensatory damages from the owner or driver 

of an uninsured motor vehicle” despite the partial sovereign immunity

of the tortfeasor?

Our phrasing of this question is merely suggestive and does not restrict the scope 

of the Court’s inquiry. Amend v. 485 Props., LLC, 409 F.3d 1288, 1289 (11th Cir. 

2005). To assist the Court’s consideration, the entire record, together with the 

parties’ briefs, shall be transmitted herewith to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

QUESTION CERTIFIED.

Case: 14-10266 Date Filed: 09/03/2014 Page: 4 of 4