FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 13, 201 1 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 64 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 01 58 -TCB ALEA L ONDON L IMI TED, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us AMERIC AN HOME SERVICES, INC., a.k .a. A.H.S., Inc., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt ,
A FAST SIGN COMPANY, INC., d/b/ a Fas ts ig ns on be ha lf o f Tha t Ce rta in Cla ss Cert ifi ed by the Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 06 Orde r of

th e Fu lt on Co un ty, GA Supe rio r Co urt i n C as e No. 2 00 3- CV-7 72 76 , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 64 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 01 58 -TCB ALEA L ONDON L IMI TED, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us AMERIC AN HOME SERVICES, INC., a.k .a. A.H.S., Inc., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,
A FAST SIGN COMPANY, INC., d.b .a. Fas ts ig ns on be ha lf o f Tha t Ce rta in Cla ss Cert ifi ed by the Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 06 Orde r of

th e Fu lt on Co un ty, GA Supe rio r Co urt i n C as e No. 2 00 3- CV-7 72 76 do in g b us in es s as Fas ts ig ns , Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 13 , 20 11 )

2Befo re HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es , andHOWARD, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * HULL, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee Al ea Lo nd on Lim it ed(“ Alea ” o r “ th e in su rer” ) fi le d t hi s de cl arat ory

jud gm en t ac ti on , all eg in g i t h adno du ty to d efen d o r in de m ni fy it s in su red , def

en da ntAm eri can Hom e Servi ces , Inc . (“ AHS” o r “ th e in su red ”), i n st at e co urt l it ig at io n b ro ug htby A Fas t Si gn Co m

pa ny, Inc. (“ Fas tS ig ns ”). Inth e st at e la wsu it , Fas tS ig ns su edth e in su red , AHS, for s en di ng un so li ci te d fa xe s i n vi ol at io n o f th e Tel ep ho ne Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Actof 1 99 1 (“ TCPA”). Init s s umm ary jud gm en t ru li ng s, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d, i nt er al ia , th at (1 ) th e in su rer Al ea h ada du ty to d efen d a ndin de m ni fy AHS inth e st at e la wsu it ; (2 ) th e $ 50 0 p er-c la im an t d educ ti bl e in th e Ale a p ol ic y ap pl ie d t o c ov erag e fo r AHS’s “ adve rti si ng in

jury” liabi li ty; (3) th e p un it iv e d am ag es ex cl us io n i n t he Aleapo li cy

ap pl ie d t o a ny treb le da m ag es award edag ai ns t AHS u nd er the TCPA;
an d (4 ) th e Ale a p ol ic y

co ve redco st s b utno t at to rn ey s’ fees award edag ai ns t AHS in th e st at e la wsu it . Bot h t he in su redAHS andFas tS ig ns ap pe al th e la ck -o fco ve rag e ru li ng s as to pu ni ti ve da m ag es an d a tt orne y s’ fees . AHS app eal s t he
ru li ng as t o t he $5 00 pe r-cl ai m an t d educ ti bl e.

The Honor able Ma

rcia Morales H owar d, United States District J udg e for the Middle * District of F lorida, sitting by designation. 3Afte r rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he bri efs , andwith t he be ne fitof o ral

arg um en t, we af

firm in pa rt a ndrev ers e in pa rt. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Fro m Ju ly 17, 2 00 2, t o J ul y

17 , 20 03 , AHS was the na m edin su redon a
co m m erci al ge ne ral li ab il it y

in su ran ce p ol ic y

(th e “ Po li cy ”) i ss ue d b y

Alea . The Po li cy co ve rs su m s AHS m

us t p ay be cau se of “ adve rti si ng in jury,” defi ne d a s fo ll ows : Cov era ge B. Pers on al an d Adv erti si ng Inj ury Lia bi li ty 1. I ns uri ng Agre ement a. W e wil l pa y th os e su m s th at th e in su red be co m es le ga ll y ob li ga te d to pa y as da m ag es be cau se of pe rs on al in jury or adve rti si ng in

jury to whi ch th is in su ran ce ap pl ie s. W e wil l ha ve th e r i g h t an d du ty to de fen d an y su itsee ki ng th os e d am ag es . . . .

. . . . Sect io n V– Def

in iti on s 1. Adv ert is in g in

jury m ean s in

jury ari si ng ou t of on e or m or e of th e fo ll owi ng of fen se s: a. Oral or writ te n publ ic at io n of m at eri al th at sl an de rs or li be ls a pe rs on or or ga ni z a t i o n or di sp arag es a pe rs on ’s or or gani zat io n’s go od s, pr oduc ts or s erv ic es ; b. Oral o r writ te n p ub li cat io n o f m at eri al th atvi ol at es a pe rs on ’s rig ht of pri va cy ; c. Mi sapp ro pr ia ti on of a dv ert is in g i de as or s tyle o f do in g b us in es s; or d. In fri ng em en t o f co pyrig ht , ti tl e o r sl og an .[ ] 1 (Em ph as is ad de d)
Coverag e A of

the Policy

provides cove rag e for

Bodily Injury L iability and Proper

ty 1 Damag e L iability . Coverag e B provides cove rag e for Personal Injury

L iability and Adve rtising Injury L iability
. 4A. Sta te Co urt L iti ga tio n

In20 02 , th e in su redAHS beg ansel li ng an d i ns ta ll in g wi nd ows , si di ng , and gu tt ers . AHS hi reda th ird -p art y m ark et in g fi rm

to sen d a dv ert is em en ts vi a fax
. Thi s t hi rd -p arty

firm sen t ap pr ox im at el y

30 0,0 00 fax adve rti se m en ts onAHS’ s be ha lf, i nc lu di ng on e to Fas tS ig ns in Marc h 2 00 3. On Oct ob er 3 1, 2 00 3, Fa st Si gn s fi le d s ui t ag ai ns t t he in su redAHS in Geo rg iast at e co urt (t he “ st at e la wsu it ”), al le gi ng th atAHS’ s fa x a dv ert is em en ts vi ol at edth e TCPA’s p ro hi bi ti on on “ anun so li ci te d a dv ert is em en t t o atel ep ho ne facs im il e m ach in e.” 4 7 U.S.C. § 22 7( b) (1 )(C)
. The TCPA c reat es a pr iv at e ri gh t 2 of act io n u nd er wh ic h aparty can b rin g s ui t t o re co ve r it s “ actua l m on et ary lo ss ”
or“ to rece iv e $ 50 0 i n d am ag es ” p er v io la ti on , whi ch ev er i s g reat er. Id
. § 2 27 (b )(3 )(B) . If th e v io la ti on was wi ll fu l o r kn owi ng , th e TCPA al lo ws the
co urt, i n i ts di sc ret io n, t o “ in crea se th e am ou ntof t he awardto anam ou ntequa l t o
no t m or e th an3 t im es th e am ou ntav ai labl e u nd er s ub parag rap h B ” ab ov e. Id
. § 2 27 (b )(3 ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . The TCPA i s u nu su al be cau se itcrea te s a p riv at e rig htof a ct io n tha t m ay

be bro ug htin st at e co urt o nl y . Nich ol so n v . Hoo te rs of

Section 227 was amended a fter the events that g ive rise to the state court litigation. 2 Refer ence s to the TCPA in this opinion are to the re levant pre -2005 ver sion of the statute. 5Aug us ta , Inc ., 13 6 F .3d12 87 , 12 87 -8 9 (1 1t h C ir.) , m od ifi edon reh ’g, 14 0 F .3d

89 8 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 8)
. Inth e st at e la wsu itag ai ns t t he in su redAHS, Fast Si gn s as ke d fo r cl as s cert ifi cat io n o f it s TCP A cla im s, $ 50 0 i n s ta tu to ry da m ag es for

each vi ol at io n o f th e TCPA, an d the TCPA’s st atut ory tre bl in g o f eac h a wardfor AHS’ s “ wil lfu l o r kn owi ng ” v io la ti on s. Fas tS ig ns als o s ou gh t t o re co ve r it s ex pe ns es of l it ig at io n, in cl ud in g a tt orne y s’ fees , un de r Geo rg ialaw, O.C.G.A § 1 3- 6- 11 . The s ta te tri al
co urt ce rti fie d F as tS ig ns ’s cla im s fo r cl as s ad jud ic at io n, a d eci si on lat er uph el d o n ap pe al . Am . Hom e Servs ., Inc . v. A Fas t Si gn Co ., 28 7 Ga. Ap p. 1 61 (20 07 ). At the ou ts etof the st at e la wsu it , AHS reque st edth atit s i ns ur er Al ea pr ov id e a d efen se an d i nd em ni fy AHS foran y

da m ag es . Alea h ire d c ou ns el to de fen d AHS u nd er a Bi la te ral Non -Waiv er an d R es erv at io n o f Ri gh ts Agre em en t. Aleade fen de d AHS fo r si x years i n t he st at e la wsu it
. 3 B. Feder al Decl ar at or y J udg m ent Act io n In20 09 , th e in su rer Al ea fi le d t hi s d ecl arat ory jud gm en t ac ti onag ai ns t AHS
an d F as tS ig ns , see ki ng to res ol ve sev eral subs ta nt iv e is su es reg ard in g wh atAHS’ s

In the ce rtified cla ss action, the state tria l court found that AH S was responsible f or 3 sending306,000 unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA. On September 15, 2010, following a benc h trial, the state c ourt awa rded treble damag es of $1,500 f or ea ch violation, resultingin a total awar d of $459 million. 6Po li cy

with Al ea d idor d idno t co ve r. Spe ci fic al ly, Aleaso ug hta de cl arat ory jud gm en t t ha t: (1) itdi d n otha ve to in de m ni fy AHS forda m ag es be cau se th e Po li cy di d n otco ve r th e cl ai m s i n t he st at e la wsu it ; (2 ) ev enif the Po li cy co ve red th os e cl ai m s, Al ea d idno t h av e to pa y an y da m ag es awardup to $5 00 pe r in di vi du al be cau se th atam ou ntfel l wi th in th e p er-c la im an t d educ ti bl e sc he du le in th e Po li cy ; an d (3 ) an y

awardin th e st at e la wsu itin crea si ng th e $ 50 0 d am ag es awardba se d o n afin di ng of wi ll fu l o r kn owi ng vi ol at io ns of t he TCPA by AH S
was no t co ve reddu e to th e Po li cy ’s exc lu si onof p un it iv e o r ex em pl ary da m ag es . Fas tS ig ns an d Al ea fi le d c ro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t. In ru li ng s 4
no t ch al le ng edinth is ap pe al , th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in ed : (1 ) th atth e Po li cy ob li ga te d Al ea t o d efen d a ndin de m ni fy AHS inth e st at e la wsu it ; an d (2 ) th at AHS’s facs im il e tr an sm is si on s i n v io la ti on of t he TCPA am ou nt edto vi ol at io ns of

“ a p ers on ’s rig htof p riv acy” for p ur po se s o f Adv ert is in g In

jury L iabi li ty und er the Po li cy . In ru li ng s n ow ch al le ng edin th is ap pe al , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t:

5
Alea a ctually

filed its Motion for Summ ary J udg ment afte r the de adline, and ha d to seek 4 the district court’s le ave to f ile its mot ion. The district court a llowed this tardy filing; that decision is not on appea l. As to AdvertisingInjury

L iability cover ag e, ther e ar e arguably issues whether

that 5 cover ag e, as de fined in the Policy , exis ts only when the c ontent of the mate rial published by unsolicited faxes violates a per son’s right to privacy or whe ther the TCPA-pr ohibited publication of the unsolicited adve rtisement is itself violative of a pe rson’s right to privacy . See Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 545 F.3d 1303, 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) (Penzer I ) (c ertify ing to F lorida Supreme Court question whether a dvertisinginjury liability insurance cover ed liability for unsolicited faxes in violation of the TCPA); Penz er v. Tr ansp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000, 1002 (Fla. 2010) 7(1 ) th e $ 50 0 p er-c la im an t d educ ti bl e ap pl ie s t o AHS’s co ve rag e fo r Adv ert is in g

In jury L iabi li ty; (2) tre bl e d am ag es un de r th e TCPA are pu ni ti ve in na tu re an d
co ns eque nt ly are ex cl ud edby the Po li cy ; an d (3 ) th e Po li cy do es no t co ve r an y at to rn ey s’ fees award edag ai ns t AHS i n t he st at e la wsu it
. The p art ie s d o n ot 6 di sp ut e th atth e Po li cy

was e nt eredin to in Geor gi a an d t ha t Geo rg ialaw g ov ern s
co ns tru ct io n o f th e Po li cy . Thu s we fi rs t ex am in e rel ev an t Geo rg ialaw an d t he n 7 th e sp eci fic pa rts of t he Po li cy in is su e. II . GEORG IA LAW Geo rg ialaw d ire ct s co urts in te rp ret in g i ns ur an ce p ol ic ie s t o a sc ert ai n t he in te nt io n o f th e p art ie s b y ex am in in g t he co nt ractas awho le . Ry anv. St at e Farm Mu t. Au to . Ins . Co., 2 61 Ga. 86 9, 8 72 (19 92 ). A cou rt m us t fi rs t co ns id er “ th e (Penzer I I ) (a

nsweringcer

tified question in affir

mative under

Florida law); Penzer v. Tr ansp. Ins. Co., 605 F.3d 1112, 1113-14 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (Penzer I I I ) (r emandingto district court for judgme nt in accor d with Florida Supre me Court’s ruling ). Although these insura nce c overa g e issues were litigated in the district c ourt, they are not raised he re a

nd we ne ed not addr ess them under G eorg ia law. On the last day

of discover

y , Fa stSi gns filed a Motion to Compel Discovery from Alea , 6 alleg ing that Alea imprope rly withheld documents under a cla im of privileg e. The district court denied F astSigns’s Motion to Compel, ruled its moti on was not “substantially justified,” and order ed it to pay

costs and attorne y s’ fe es to Alea . Fa stSi gns appea ls the district court’s denia l of its Moti on to Compel and the awa rd of attorney s’ fe es to Alea . After revie w, we f

ind no abuse of discretion or r ever sible err or in the district court’ s discovery ruling s and aw ard of

attorney s’ fe es. Thus, we a ffirm those pa

rticular r ulings without furthe r discussion. The c onstruction of an insura nce c ontrac t is a question of law the Court re views de novo. 7 St. P aul Fir e & Marine I

ns. Co. v. ERA Ox ford Rea lty Co. Grey stone, L L C, 572 F.3d 893, 897 (11th Cir. 2009); Tec hnical CoatingApplicators, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar . Co., 157 F.3d 843, 844 (11th Cir. 1998). 8or di na ry

an d l eg al m ean in g o f th e wor ds em pl oyed i n the in su ran ce co ntract .” Id
. An i ns ur an ce p ol ic y

“ sh ou ldbe readas alaym anwou ldreadit .” YorkIns . Co. v
. W il li am s Se afo odof Al ba ny, Inc., 2 73 Ga. 71 0, 7 12 (20 01 ). “ [P]arti es to th e
co nt ractof i ns ur an ce ar e b ou ndby its pl ai n a ndun am bi gu ou s t erm s.” Pe ach tre e Cas . Ins . Co. v . Kim , 23 6 Ga. Ap p. 6 89 , 69 0 (1 99 9) . “ If the term s o f th e co nt ract are p la in an d u na m

bi gu ou s, the co nt ractm

us t b e en fo rcedas wri tt en. . . .” Ry an , 26 1 Ga. at87 2. An am bi gu it y ex is ts , ho wev er, wh enth e p la inword s o f a co nt ractare fa irl y
su sc ep ti bl e o f m or e th anon e m ean in g. Co ll ie r v. St at e Farm Mu t. Au to . Ins . Co., 24 9 Ga. Ap p. 8 65 , 86 7 (2 00 1) . Georg ialaw t each es th atanam bi gu ity “ is dupl ic it y , in di st in ctne ss , an u nc ert ai nt y of m ean in g o r ex pr es si on .” Id . Whe n a te rm in a co nt ractis am

bi gu ou s, Geo rg iaco urts “ ap pl y th e ru le s o f co nt ract
co ns tru ct io n t o re so lv e th e am bi gu it y .” Cert ai n Un de rwri te rs at Ll oyd’s of Lon do n v . Ruc ke r Co ns tr., In c., 28 5 Ga. Ap p. 8 44 , 84 8 (2 00 7)
. Pu rs uantto Geor gi a’s ru le s o f co nt ractco ns tru ct io n, “ [t]he co ns tru ct io n whi chwil l uph ol d aco nt ractin who le an d i n e ve ry pa rt i s t o b e p refe rred , andth e who le co nt ractsh ou ldbe lo ok edto in arri vi ng at t he co ns tru ct io n o f an y pa rt.” O.C.G.A. § 13 -2 -2 (4 ). Furth er, am bi gu it ie s ar e co ns tru edag ai ns t t he dra fte r of th e
co nt ract(i.e ., th e in su rer) , andin fav orof t he in su red . Kim , 23 6 Ga. Ap p. at69 0;
9O.C.G.A. § 13 -2 -2 (5 ). Acco rd in gl y , inth is cas e, an y am bi gu it y wil l b e co ns tru ed ag ai ns t Al ea, the dra fte r of th e Po li cy , andin fav orof c ov erag e. If the am bi gu it y rem ai ns aft er the co urt ap pl ie s t he rul es of c on st ru ct io n,

“ th e is su e o f wha t t he am bi gu ou s l an gu ag e m ean s an d wh atth e p art ie s i nt en de d
m us t b e res ol ve d b y

[th e fi nd er o f fac t].” Ruc ke r Co ns tr., 2 85 Ga. App . at 8 48 (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. II I. DEDUCTI BLE The di stric t co urt ru le d a$5 00 pe r-cl ai m an t d educ ti bl e ap pl ie s t o a ny da m ag es fro m

Adv ert is in g In

jury L iabi li ty awarde d a ga in stAHS. The d is tri ct
co urt’s d et erm in at io n was ba se d o n t he Po li cy ’s sch edul e, co nt ai ne d i n atwo -p ag e

“ Opt io na l Pr ov is io ns End or se m en t,” t ha t s ta te s: THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES TH E POLICY PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY OPTI ONAL PROVI SI ONS ENDORS EMENT Inco ns id erat io n o f th e p rem iu m ch arg ed , itis ag reedth atth e fo ll owi ng sp eci al pr ov is io ns (in di cat edby an “ X”) ap pl y to th is po li cy SCHEDUL E (x ) Bo di ly Inj ury an d Pro pert y Da m ag e Li ab il ity Deduct ib le Endo rs ement Cov era ge Am ou nt a nd Ba si s o f Deduc tib le Bo di ly Injury Liab il it y $5 00 .00 percla im an t Pro pe rty Dam ag e Liabi li ty $5 00 .00 percla im an t Pers on al Inju ry

Liab il it y $5 00 .00 percla im an t Adv ert is in g In

jury L iabi li ty $5 00 .00 percla im an t 10The di stric t co urt s tre ss edth atth is is th e o nl y de du ct ib le pro vi si on
m en ti on in g Ad ve rti si ng Inju ry Liab il it y an d t hi s s ch edul e p la in ly pro vi de s fo r a de du ct ib le of $ 50 0 p er cl ai m an t fo r Adv ert is in g In jury L iabi li ty. The di stric t co urt de te rm in edth at“ [t]he pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e Po li cy su ffi ces to de te rm in e th e pa rti es ’ in te ntwith re sp ectto th e d educ ti bl e fo r adve rti si ng in jury liab il ity , whi ch is th e type o f li ab il it y

at i ss ue in th is cas e.” On ap pe al , AHS pri m ari ly argu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredbe cau se th e

“ Opt io na l Pr ov is io ns End or se m en t,” i n wh ic h t he Adv ert is in g In jury L iabi li ty de du ct ib le ap pe ars , app li es on ly to co ve rag e fo r Bo di ly Injury Liab il it y or Pro pe rty Dam ag e Liabi li ty, oralt ern at iv el y th atth e Po li cy

is at l eas t am

bi gu ou s as to th e d educ ti bl e. 8 W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o e rro r in it s co ns tru ct io n o f th e Po li cy , andth is “ Opt io na l Pr ov is io ns End or se m en t” inpa rti cu la r. The End or se m en t p la in ly sets forth a $5 00 “pe r cl ai m an t” de du ct ib le for all

“ Adv ert is in g In

jury L iabi li ty.” T he se pl ai n wo rd s ar e n otsu sc ep ti bl e to m or e th an
on e m ean in g. This Optional Provisions Endorseme nt also contains a late r par agraph ( entitled “B odily 8 Injury and Proper

ty Damag e L iability

Deduc tible Endorsement” ), that states (1) any limit ations on the application of this endorsement must be written be low; and (2) that if no such limitations appea r, “the deductibles a

pply to damag es for

all ‘bodily

injury ’ and ‘ proper

ty damag e,’ how ever cause d.” Howe ver, nothingin this l ater discussion mentions Advertising Injury L iability or contra dicts the textof the blocke d schedule
. 11W e fu ll y reco gn iz e th atth is pl ai n s ta te m en t i n t he “ Opt io na l Pr ov is io ns End or se m en t” is pl acedun de r th e sub- ph ras e “ Bo di ly Injury andPro pe rty Dam ag e Liab il it y Dedu ct ib le End or se m en t.” Ho wev er, the sch edul e it se lf i s b lo ck edin bo ld , con ta in s i ts ownbo ld edco lu m n h ead in g o f “ Co ve rag e” an d t he reu nd er
se pa rat es ou t al l fo urtypes of c ov erag e in th e Po li cy : Bo di ly Injury Liab il ity ; Pro pe rty Dam ag e Liabi li ty; Pers on al Inju ry Liab il it y ; an d Ad ve rti si ng Inju ry Liab il it y . The b lo ck edsch edul e th enst at es acro ss fro m each type o f li ab il it y
co ve rag e th atth e d educ ti bl e is $5 00 pe r cl ai m an t. No th in g i n the res t o f th is End or se m en t m ak es th is pl ai n l an gu ag e in th e b lo ck edsch edul e am bi gu ou s. Fu rth er, the on ly oth er d educ ti bl e sc he du le inth e en ti re Po li cy pro vi de s ex pr es sl y fo r a d educ ti bl e o f $5 00 pe r oc cu rren ce fo r Bo di ly Injury Liab il it y an d/ orPro pe rty Dam ag e Liabi li ty com

bi ne d, b utm ak es no m en ti on of P ers on al Inju ry Liab il it y or Adv ert is in g In

jury L iabi li ty. To ac cep t AHS’s arg um en t wo ul d i gn or e th e p la in tex t o f th e b lo ck ed
sc he du le . Im

po rta nt ly, itwou ldals o re adth e Adv ert is in g In jury L iabi li ty de du ct ib le lan gu ag e o utof t he Po li cy , ren de rin g i t n ug at ory , an o ut co m e di sf av or edby the Geor gi a co urts . See Hark in s v . Pro gr es si ve Gul f In s. Co ., 26 2 Ga. App . 55 9, 5 61 (20 03 ) (“ Inco ns tru in g a n i ns ur an ce co nt ract , a co urt m us t
co ns id er i t as a who le , gi ve effe ctto each pro vi si on , andin te rp reteach pro vi si on
12to ha rm on iz e wit h e ach ot he r.” (em ph as is ad de d) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). It i s
no t t hi s C ou rt’s ro le to aidth e in su redby ext en di ng it s co ve rag e b ey on d t ha t fo r whi chitco nt ract ed . See Burn ette v. Ga. Lif e & Heal th Ins . Co., 1 90 Ga. App
. 48 5, 4 85 (19 89 ) (“ Co urts ha ve no m or e ri gh t b y st rai ne d c on st ru ct io n t o m ak e an in su ran ce p ol ic y

m or e b en efi ci al by ext en di ng th e co ve rag e co nt ract edforth an th ey wou ldha ve to in crea se th e am ou ntof c ov erag e.”). Acco rd in gl y , we fin d n o 9
erro r inth e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th atth e $ 50 0 p er-c la im an t d educ ti bl e ap pl ie s t o AHS’s Adve rti si ng Inju ry Liab il it y co ve rag e. 1 0 IV. PUNIT IVE DAMAGES EXCLUSI ON As n ot edearl ie r, th e TCPA m ak es it“un la wfu l fo r an y pe rs on . . . to us e an y te le ph on e fac si m il e m ach in e, co m pu te r, or ot he r de vi ce t o s en d a n u ns ol ic it ed

The insure d AHS also contends that Ale a should be e quitably estopped fr om asserting 9 non-cove rag e def

enses in this decla

ratory judgme nt action bec ause the attorney s Alea hire d to repr esent AH S in the state lawsuit alleg edly failed to notify

AHS of a $1,000,000 se ttlement offer by Fa stSi gns. We rejec t AHS’s equitable e stoppel argument. Nothing he rein, howe ver, r ules on whether this affe cts the monetar

y limit s of liability

under A lea’ s Poli cy . On appe al, Fa stSi gns contends that seve ral of the se issues dec ided by the district court, 1 0 such as a pplicability

of the de ductible, wer e not ripe f or adjudica

tion, and that the district court there fore rende red a

n advisory

opinion. Each of F astSigns’s c ontentions lacks merit. See, e .g ., Maryland Casualty

Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 271-74, 61 S. C t. 510, 511-13 (1941) ( findingjusticiable controve rsy in declar atory

judgme nt action see king inter pretation of auto insuranc e contr act) . This appea l is not si milar to America n Fidelity & Ca sualty

Co. v. Pennsylvania Thre shermen a nd Fa rmers’ Mutual Casualty

Insuranc e Co., 280 F.2d 453 ( 5th Cir. 1960), which involved howliability for unr esolved c laims should be apportioned be tween se vera l insurance companies. See Edwards v. Sharkey , 747 F.2d 684, 686- 87 (11th Cir. 1984) (discussingand distinguishingAmeric an F idelity). 13adve rti se m en t t o atel ep ho ne facs im il e m ach in e.” 4 7 U.S.C. § 22 7( b) (1 )(C) . The

TCPA cre at es a pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n u nd er wh ic h aparty can b rin g “ anact io n t o
reco ve r fo r actua l m on et ary lo ss fro m su ch a vi ol at io n, o r to rece iv e $ 50 0 i n da m ag es foreach su ch vi ol at io n, wh ic he ve r is gre at er.” Id . § 2 27 (b )(3 )(B) . The TCPA is ess en ti al ly a str ic t l iabi li ty statut e whi chim po se s l iabi li ty for err on eo us
un so li ci te d fa xe s. Pen zer v . Trans p. In s. Co ., 54 5 F .3d13 03 , 13 11 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ). Howev er, i f th e co urt d et erm in es th at“ th e d efen da ntwil lfu ll y or kno win gl y vi ol at ed ” th e TCPA, “ th e co urt m ay , init s d is cret io n, i nc reas e th e am ou ntof t he awardto anam ou ntequa l t o n otm or e th an3 t im es th e am ou ntav ai labl e u nd er
subp arag rap h (B ) of

th is pa rag rap h.” 47 U.S.C. § 2 27 (b )(3 ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. The TCPA do es no t re qu ire an y in te ntforli ab il it y

ex cep t wh enaward in g t reb le da m ag es . Pen zer, 5 45 F.3dat 1 31 1. Im po rtant ly tho ug h, t he in te ntfor tre bl e da m ag es do es no t re qu ire any m al ic io us or wa nt on co nduc t, b utrathe r is sat is fie d by m erel y

“ kn owi ng ” co nduc t. Alt ho ug h t he Po li cy

eas il y co ul d h av e ex cl ud edtre bl e d am ag es by nam e, it do es no t d o s o. Ra th er, the Po li cy on ly has anex cl us io n fo r “ da m ag es attrib ut ab le to pu ni ti ve or e xe m

pl ary da m ag es ,” as fol lo ws: Ex cl us io n– Puni tiv e o r Ex emplar y Da m ag e 14The fol lo win g e xc lu si onis ad de d t o C ov erag es A, B, andC (Sec ti on I):

Thi s in su ran ce do es no t ap pl y to a cl ai m of or in de m ni fic at io n fo r pu ni ti ve or ex em pl ary da m ag es . If a su it sh al l ha ve be en br ou gh t ag ai ns t y ou fo r a cl ai m wit hi n th e co ve rag e pr ov id ed un de r th e po li cy , se ek in g bo th co m pe ns at ory an d pu ni ti ve or ex em

pl ary da m ag es , th en we wil l affo rd a de fen ce fo r su ch act io n. We s h a l l no t ha ve an ob li ga ti on to pa y fo r an y co st s, in te res t, or da m ag es at tri bu tabl e to pu ni ti ve or e xe m pl ary da m ag es . (Em ph as is ad de d)
. The Po li cy do es no t d efi ne pu ni ti ve da m ag es . Here, th e 1 1 di sp ut edis su e is whet he r th e tr eb li ng of t he st atut ory co m pe ns at ory da m ag es in 47 U.S.C. § 2 27 (b )(3 ) co ns ti tu te s p un it iv e d am ag es forpu rp os es of t he pu ni ti ve da m ag es ex cl us io n i n the Po li cy . The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth attre bl e d am ag es un de r th e TCPA are pu ni ti ve in na tu re, co nc lu di ng th atth ey are “ cl os er t o p un is hm en t t ha n t o pa y ba ck .” Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t an y tre bl e d am ag es award ed ag ai ns t AHS i n t he st at e la wsu itfel l u nd er the pu ni ti ve da m ag es ex cl us io n i n t he Po li cy , andAleais no t o bl ig at edto in de m ni fy AHS for th os e tr eb le dam ag es . Befo re i nt erp ret in g t he TCPA an d t he pu ni ti ve da m ag es ex cl us io n i n t he Po li cy , we ex am in e rel ev an t Supr em e Co urt ca se s ab ou t t he na tu re o f st atut ory tre bl e da m ag es .

Ex emplary

damag es is a sy

nony m for punitive damag es. See, e .g ., O.C.G.A § 51-12- 1 1 5.1(a) (statingthat, for pur poses of Ge org ia’s punitive damag es statute, “punitive damag es” is sy nony mous with “exemplary

damag es”) . Thus, we r efe r simply to punitive damag es throughout this opini on. 15A. Supr eme Court Ca se s E xa m in in g S ta tuto ry Treb le Damag es

The Supr em e Co urt h as ad dr es se d the is su e o f whe th er treb le da m ag es sh ou ldbe co ns id eredco m pe ns at ory or p un it iv e in th e co nt ex t o f se ve ral di ffer en t st atut es . Gener al ly, Supr em e Co urt “ cas es ha ve pl aceddi ffer en t s ta tu to ry tre bl eda m ag es pro vi si on s o n d iff eren t p oi nt s al on g t he sp ect ru m be twee n p ur el y
co m pe ns at ory an d s tri ct ly pun it iv e award s.” Pa ci fiC are Hea lth S y s., In c. v. Bo ok , 53 8 U.S. 4 01 , 40 5, 1 23 S. Ct. 1 53 1, 1 53 5 (2 00 3) . The Supr em e Co urt h as fou nd th at“ th e ti pp in g p oi ntbe twee n p ay ba ckan d p un is hm en t d efi es ge ne ral fo rm ul at io n, b ei ng de pe nd en t o n t he work in gs of apa rti cu la r st atut e an d the
co ur se of p art ic ul ar l it ig at io n.” Coo k C nt y ., Ill . v. Un it edSta te s ex rel . Cha nd le r, 53 8 U.S. 1 19 , 13 0, 1 23 S. Ct. 1 23 9, 1 24 6 (2 00 3)
. In f act , tre bl e d am ag es st atut es de fy eas y cat eg or iz at io n a s co m

pe ns at ory or pu ni ti ve in na tu re. Whe th er treb le dam ag es un de r a g iv enst atut e are co ns id ered
co m pe ns at ory or p un it iv e is anin te ns el y fact -b as edin qu iry tha t m ay vary st atut eto -s ta tu te . Com

pa re Ag en cy

Hol di ng Co rp . v. Ma ll ey -Du ff & As so cs ., Inc ., 48 3 U.S. 14 3, 1 51 , 10 7 S . Ct. 2 75 9, 2 76 4 (1 98 7) (“ Bo th RICO an d t he Clayto n Actare de si gn edto rem edy

eco no m ic in

jury by pro vi di ng forth e rec ov ery of tre bl e da m ag es , cos ts , andatt orne y ’s fees .”), Sh ears on /Am . Exp res s, In c. v. M cMa ho n, 48 2 U.S. 2 20 , 24 0, 1 07 S. Ct. 2 33 2, 2 34 5 (1 98 7) (di sc us si ng th e “ rem ed ia l ro le of
16th e tr eb le -d am ag es pro vi si on ” in RICO), Am . Soc ’y of M ech . Eng ’rs, Inc . v. Hy dr ol ev el Co rp ., 45 6 U.S. 5 56 , 57 5, 1 02 S. Ct. 1 93 5, 1 94 7 (1 98 2) (no ti ng
an ti tru stpri va te act io n, wh ic h a ll ows fortre bl e d am ag es , “ was crea te d p rimaril y as
a rem edy forth e v ic ti m s o f an ti tru stvi ol at io ns ,” an d s ta ti ng th at“ [t]reb le da m ag es
m ak e th e rem edy

m ean in gf

ul by count er-b al an ci ng th e d iff ic ul ty of m ai nt ai ni ng a pr iv at e su itun de r th e an ti tru stlaws ” (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ), Bru ns wickCo rp . v. Pu eb lo Bo wl-O-M at , Inc ., 42 9 U.S. 4 77 , 48 5- 86 , 97 S. Ct. 6 90 , 69 6 (1 97 7) (ch arac te riz in g § 4 o f th e Cl ayto n Act , 15 U.S.C. § 1 5, wh ic h p erm it s re co ve ry of tre bl e d am ag es , as “ in ess en ce a re m ed ia l p ro vi si on ”), Ch an dl er, 5 38 U.S. at 1 30
- 34 , 12 3 S . Ct at12 46 -4 9 (s ta ti ng , ina la wsu itag ai ns t a m un ic ip al co rp or at io n, t ha t

“ itis im po rta ntto real iz e th attre bl e d am ag es ha ve a co m pe ns at ory si de , servi ng
rem ed ia l p ur

po se s i n a dd it io n t o p un it iv e o bjec ti ve s,” a ndco nc lu di ng a m un ic ip al
co rp or at io n i s a “ pe rs on ” subjec t t o t reb le da m ag es un de r th e Fal se Cla im s Act ), 1 2 Paci fiC are Hea lt h S y s., 5 38 U.S. at 4 05 -0 7, 1 23 S. Ct. at15 35 -3 6 (d is cu ss in g t he Supr em e Co urt’s p rio r co nc lu si on s t ha t RI CO’s tre bl e-d am ag es pro vi si on is
rem ed ia l, co ns tru in g a n arb it rat io n c laus e p ro hi bi ti ng pu ni ti ve da m ag es , fin di ng

The F alse Claims Act make s treble damag es ava ilable ag ainst any person who, inter 1 2 alia, “know ingly

prese nts, or cause s to be prese nted, a f alse or f raudule nt claim for pa

y ment or approva l.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)( 1) (e mphasis added) . Both Chandler and Stevens c onstrued the same F CA but appea

r to have rea ched opposite c onclusions based on whe ther a state entity

or a municipal corpor ation was the de fenda nt. 17th e ap pl ic at io n o f th atclaus e to st atut ory tre bl e d am ag es un de r RIC O “ is , to say th e le as t, i n d oubt ,” an d l eav in g i t t o a rb it rat or to de te rm in e m ean in g o f pu ni ti ve da m ag es ex cl us io n i n arb it rat io n a gr eem en t), wi th Vt. Age nc y of Na tu ral Res . v. Uni te d S ta te s ex rel . Ste ve ns , 52 9 U.S. 7 65 , 78 4- 88 , 12 0 S . Ct. 1 85 8, 1 86 9- 71 (2 00 0) (st at in g, i n c on te xtof alaws ui t ag ai ns t a s ta te , th atth e st at e is imm un e fro m pu ni ti ve da m ag es , th atth e Fal se Cla im s Act“ im po se s d am ag es th atare
es se nt ia ll y

pu ni ti ve in na tu re,” an d t hu s tha t t he st at e is no t a “ pe rs on ” who can be li ab le un de r Fal se Cla im s Act ), Tex. In du s., In c. v. Ra dc li ff Ma te ria ls , Inc ., 45 1 U.S. 63 0, 6 39 , 10 1 S . Ct. 2 06 1, 2 06 6 (1 98 1) (in di cat in g t ha t t reb le da m ag es un de r th e an ti tru stlaws canbe co ns id eredpu ni ti ve in na tu re an d s ta ti ng “ [t]he ve ry id ea of tre bl e d am ag es rev eal s an in te ntto pu ni shpa st , andto de te r fu tu re, u nl awfu l
co nduc t, n otto am el io rat e th e li ab il it y of wro ng do ers ”). Insh ort, the re i s n o ri gi d ru le on ch arac te riz in g t reb le dam ag es st atut es as ei th er co m

pe ns at ory or p un it iv e. W it h t hi s b ack gr ou nd , we tu rnto th e TCPA. B. Nat ure o f TCPA’s Treb le Damag es Here, the st ru ctur e an d l an gu ag e o f th e TCPA are si gn ifi can t. Sec ti on 22 7( b) (3 ) pr ov id es : (3 ) Pri va te rig htof a ct io n

18A pe rs on or en ti ty m ay , if ot he rwis e pe rm it te d by th e la ws or ru le s of co urt of

a St at e, br in g i n a n app ro pr ia te co urt o f th atSta te - - (A) an act io n b as edon a vi ol at io n o f th is subs ect io n o r th e reg ul at io ns pr es cri be d u nd er thi s s ub se ct io n t o e njo in su chvi ol at io n, (B) an act io n to reco ve r fo r actua l m on et ary lo ss fro m su ch a vi ol at io n, or to rece iv e $5 00 in da m ag es fo r each su ch vi ol at io n, w h i c h e v e r is gr eat er, o r (C) b ot h s uc h a ct io ns . If th e co urt fin ds th at th e de fen da nt wil lfu ll y or kn owi ng ly vi ol at ed th is subs ect io n or th e reg ul at io ns pr es cri be d un de r th is subs ect io n, th e co urt m ay , in it s di sc ret io n, in crea se t h e am ou nt of th e award to an am ou nt equa l to no t m or e th an 3 ti m es th e am ou nt av ai labl e un de r subp arag rap h (B) o f th is pa rag rap h. 47 U.S.C. § 2 27 (b )(3 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . The s ta tu te it se lf d oe s n otsay whethe r th es e tr eb le da m ag es are co ns id eredco m pe ns at ory or p un it iv e. Whi le th is Co urt ha s n otrul edonth e n atur e o f tr eb le da m ag es in th e TCPA, we h av e h el d t ha t t he TCPA’s $5 00 st atut ory

da m ag es pro vi si on is no t p un it iv e. Pen zer, 5 45 F.3dat 13 11
. 1 3

In makingits determination about the $500 statutory damag es, the Penzer Court 1 3 rea soned: “The TCPA provides for $500 statutory damag es and f

or treble damag es for

willful or knowingconduct, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)( 3), which is an indication that the statutory damag es we re not desig ned to be punitive dama g es.” Penzer, 545 F .3d at 1311. Howe ver, the Penzer Court followed that a

naly sis by pointing out that “punitive dama g es under Florida law must be base d on behavior

which indicate s a wa

nton disreg ard f

or the rights of others.” I d. (quotation marks omitted). Given, in part, the na ture of theconduct trig g eringpunitive damag es under Florida law, the Penzer Court c oncluded that F lorida’s public policy –prohibiting insuringag ainst punitive damag es liability –did not apply

to the $500 statutory

damag es under

the TCPA. I d. In Penzer, the insured ha d settled a c lass action cla im arising f rom its 24,000 unsoli cited 19Fu rth er, the TCPA’s st atut ory lan gu ag e d ire ct ly lin ks th e b as e co m pe ns at ory da m ag es in subp arag rap h B (ei th er ac tu al m on et ary lo ss or $ 50 0, wh ic he ve r is gr eat er) t o t he tre bl e d am ag es when itsays th at“ th e co urt m ay . . . in crea se th e
am ou nt. . . to no t m or e th an3 t im es th e am ou ntav ai labl e u nd er s ub parag rap h (B).” 47 U.S.C. § 2 27 (b )(3 ). In o th er wo rd s, the st atut e al lo ws t he co urt t o

“ in crea se ” th e co m

pe ns at ory awardby up t o t hr ee t im es . Id. The st atut e d oe s n ot requi re a t reb li ng , bu t p erm it s anin crea se up to th ree t im es . The s ta tu te als o c ap s da m ag es at up t o thr ee t im es th e § 22 7( b) (3 )(B) co m pe ns at ory am ou nt . “ [C]las si c pu ni ti ve da m ag es . . . le av e th e jury with op en -en de d d is cret io n o ve r th e am ou nt ” of th e d am ag e award ; treb le da m ag es un de r th e TCPA l im itth e co urt t o t reb li ng th e am ou ntof t he co m

pe ns at ory award . Cha nd le r, 53 8 U.S. at13 2, 1 23 S. Ct. at 12 47
. Andgi ve n the rel at iv el y sm al l am ou ntof s ta tu to ry da m ag es av ai labl e u nd er th e TCPA, tr eb li ng th es e d am ag es ap pe ars to be a m ech an is m to en co ur ag e vi ct im s o f un so li ci te d “

jun k” fax es to fil e su it . Cf. Ch an dl er, 5 38 U.S. at 1 31 , 12 3 S. Ct . at 1 24 7 (s ta ti ng th atdi ffer en ce b etween do ub le an d t reb le dam ag es in qu i

faxes for $12 million based on $500 in statutory damag es per

fax. I d. at 1304 n.1. No tre ble damag es we re pa

rt of the se ttlement and thus the issue in Penzer involved only the TCPA’s $500 in statutory

damag es. 20ta m

cas es m ay

serve no t t o p un is h, b utin st eadto en co ur ag e p riv at e p la in ti ffs to li ti ga te ). Fi na ll y , th e TCPA, whi ch all ows tre bl e d am ag es foreithe r wil lfu l o r kn owi ng co nduc t, d oe s n otm at ch up with Geo rg ia ’s con du ctrequi rem en ts for pu ni ti ve da m ag es . See O.C.G.A. § 51 -1 2- 5.1 (b ) (s ta ti ng th atGeor gi a la w requi res

“ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce tha t t he de fen da nt ’s act io ns sh owe d wi ll fu l
m is co nduc t, m al ic e, frau d, wan to nn es s, o pp res si on , or tha t en ti re wan t o f car e whi chwou ldrai se th e p res um pt io n o f co ns ci ou s i nd iff

eren ce t o c on se qu en ces ” be fo re a ju ry

m ay awardpu ni ti ve da m ag es ). To th e ex te ntwe ap pl y Geor gi a la w 1 4 in co ns tru in g t he Po li cy , Geor gi a’s co nduc t re qu ire m en t fo r st atut ory pu ni ti ve da m ag es is m at eri al ly diff eren t fr om

th e TCPA co nduc t re qu ire m en t o f kn owi ng ly
se nd in g a n u ns ol ic it edfax . Furt he r, th e Geo rg iaco urts ha ve reject edth e cl ai m th attre bl e d am ag es are i n e ve ry cas e th e subs ta nt ia l equi va le ntof p un it iv e da m ag es . W il li am s Gen . Cor p. v . Sto ne , 27 9 Ga. 4 28 , 42 9- 30 (20 05 ); C ol on ia l Lin co ln -Me rcu ry

Sal es , Inc . v. Mo li na , 15 2 Ga. Ap p. 3 79 , 38 2 (1 97 9)
. 1 5

The Ge org ia punitive damag es statute also re quires cle ar a nd convincingevidenc e to 1 4 impose punitive damag es; the TCPA includes no such re striction. In Wil liams, the Georg ia Supreme Court stated: 1 5 P unitive damag es . . . serve the leg islative purpose of imposing sanctions, wher eas treble damag es, which are authorized by the statute without rese rvation in ever y civil RI CO action, further RI CO’s g oal of compensating victims a nd providing incentive for “private attorney g ener als” [si c] to initiate actions ag ainst those in violation of the Act.
. . . We thus reje ct the 21Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th at , forth e p ur po se s o f in te rp ret in g th e co ve rag e p ro vi de d b y anin su ran ce co nt ractgo ve rn edby G eo rg ialaw, the TCPA’s tre bl e d am ag es pro vi si on fal ls m or e o n the co m pe ns at ory th anth e pu ni ti ve si de . Alea co ul d h av e draft edth e Po li cy ’s pu ni ti ve da m ag es ex cl us io n t o
ex pr es sl y ba r co ve rag e fo r “ tre bl e d am ag es ,” orall da m ag es th atwere “ in any way
no n- co m pe ns at ory ,” orda m ag es th atwere “ in pa rt i n t he na tu re o f pu ni ti ve da m ag es .” Bu t i t d idno t. An d a rg uabl y ev enif t he Po li cy ’s pu ni ti ve dam ag es
ex cl us io n c ou ldreas on ab ly be in te rp ret edto ex te ndto tre bl e d am ag es un de r th e TCPA, itals o c anreas on ab ly be in te rp ret ed , forth e ab ov e-d is cu ss edreas on s, n ot to ex te ndto TCPA tre bl e d am ag es . There fo re, the pu ni ti ve da m ag es ex cl us io n i s ata m in im

um am bi gu ou s, an d u nd er Geo rg ialaw m us t b e co ns tru edag ai ns t Al ea
an d i n fa vo r of

co ve rag e. See O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 2- 2( 5) (“ If the co ns tru ct io n i s do ub tfu l, tha t wh ic h g oe s m os t s tro ng ly agai ns t t he party exec ut in g t he in stru m en t
orun de rta ki ng th e o bl ig at io n i s g en eral ly to b e p refe rred .”); YorkIns . Co., 2 73 Ga. at 7 12 (st at in g tha t, i n c on st ru in g i ns ur an ce co nt ract s, “ ex cl us io ns wil l b e st ric tl y co ns tru edag ai ns t t he in su rer a ndinfav or of c ov erag e”). Th us , th e d is tri ct
co urt erredin co nc lu di ng th e Po li cy ex cl ud edco ve rag e fo r TCPA tr eb le da m ag es .
Court of Appea ls’ premise that clea r and convincing evidenc e is require d b ecause treble damag es ar e the substantial equiva lent of punitive damag es. 279 Ga. at 429-30. 22V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Inth e In su rin g Ag reem en t fo r Co ve rag e B, th e Po li cy ob li ga te s Al ea t o “ pa y th os e su m s t ha t t he in su red[AHS] be co m es leg al ly obl ig at edto pa y as d am ag es be cau se of . . . adve rti si ng in jury to wh ic h t hi s i ns ur an ce ap pl ie s.” Inth e Supp le m en ta ry

Paym en ts sec ti on forCo ve rag es A andB, th e Po li cy ob li ga te s Al ea to pa y “ wit h re sp ectto an y

cla im or s ui t [Al ea] def

en d[ s] . . . [a]ll c os ts tax ed ag ai ns t t he in su redin th e su it .” (Em ph as is ad de d) . Alea h as no t co nt es te d t he di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t i t m us t i nd em ni fy AHS for co st s award edin th e st at e la wsu it . The o nl y

is su e is whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth at Aleais no t o bl ig at edto in de m ni fy AHS foratt orne y s’ fees award edto Fas tS ig ns . On ap pe al , AHS do es no t ar gu e th atatt orne y s’ fees fal l u nd er the Po li cy ’s ab ov e co ve rag e fo r “ co st s t ax edag ai ns t the in su red .” Rathe r, AHS rel ie s h eav il y 1 6
on a Geo rg iast atut e th atall ows a pl ai nt iff to reco ve r th e “ expe ns es of l it ig at io n” whe re “ th e d efen da ntha s ac te d i n b adfai th , has be enstub bo rn ly lit ig io us , or h as
cau se d t he pl ai nt iff

un ne ces sa ry

tro ub le an d e xp en se .” O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 6- 11 . AHS
co nt en ds th atatt orne y s’ fees are “ ex pe ns es of l it ig at io n” an d thu s b eco m e

“ da m ag es ” co ve redun de r th e Po li cy un de r § 1 3- 6- 11 . AHS con te nd s Al ea’s

The ordina

ry and leg al meaningof “c osts” under G eorg ia law doe s not include 1 6 attorney s’ fe es. See Worsham B ros. v. FD I C, 167 Ga. App. 163, 166 (1983)
. 23ob li ga ti on to co ve r at to rn ey s’ fees ari se s fr om Alea ’s con tra ctua l dut y

to in de m ni fy AHS forany

“ da m ag es ” award
. 1 7 Und er p la in lan gu ag e in te rp ret at io n, AHS’s arg um en t ru ns co nt rary to t he

“ or di na ry an d l eg al m ean in g” of t he Po li cy ’s term s. Ryan, 2 61 Ga. at 8 72 . Und er Geo rg ialaw, at to rn ey s’ fees , eve n wh ere re co ve rab le , are n ottypic al ly inc lu de d wit hi n t he ord in ary sp eci es of d am ag es . See, e.g ., Bld g. M at ’ls Who le sa le , Inc . v. Tria d Drywall , LLC, 28 7 Ga. Ap p. 7 72 , 77 8 (2 00 7) (“ Bec au se li ti ga ti on expe ns es (co st s an d a tt orne y

fees ) are who ll y

an ci ll ary, th ey

are n otreco ve rab le when no da m ag es are awa rd ed .” (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ); 4 W D Part s C tr., In c. v. Mac ke nd ric k, 2 60 Ga. App . 34 0, 3 45 (20 03 ) (“ Att orne y fees are n otreco ve rab le
un de r OCGA § 1 3- 6- 11 wher e th ere i s n o a wardof d am ag es or o th er re li ef o n a ny
un de rlyin g c la im .”); Fo nt ai ne Co nd o. As s’n v . Sch na ck e, 23 0 Ga. Ap p. 4 69 , 47 0 (1 99 8) (st at in g t ha t “ reco ve ry of a tt orne y

fees [is ] ge ne ral ly forec lo se d u nl es s da m ag es [are ] reco ve red ”); Geor ge F. Bro wn & So ns , Inc . v. Kn owl es , 19 6 Ga. App . 59 4, 5 95 (19 90 ) (“ Si nc e d am ag es are n otreco ve rab le , app el le e is no t en ti tl ed to att orne y

fees .”); see als o C red le v. Eas t Ba y Hol di ng Co ., 26 3 Ga. 9 07 , 90 7

We rec ognize that FastSigns se parately argues that the state trial court may awa rd 1 7 attorney s’ fe es under

O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14, Ge org ia’s frivolous li tigation statute, or some other alternative to § 13-6-11. F astSigns conte nds that this would undercut the district cour t’s deter mination that Alea has no oblig ation to indemnify AHS for attorney s’ fe es, which F astSigns argues wa s based solely

on § 13-6-11. F astSigns’s a rgument lacks merit. 24(1 99 4) (st at in g, i n b idco nt es t ca se , th at“ at to rn ey fees co ul d b e rec ov ered , no t as
anin he ren t p artof t he da m ag es in cu rredby a frus tra te d b id de r, bu t b y est ab li sh in g th e requi rem en ts of t he pa rti cu la r st atut e th atau th or iz es att orne y fees ” (quo ta ti on
m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). Thu s, ev enwher e at to rn ey s’ fees are re co ve rab le
un de r O.C.G.A. § 13 -6 -1 1, t he y are an ci ll ary to a pl ai nt iff ’s dam ag es cla im

an d requi re p ro of

of a n a dd it io na l el em en t. See O.C.G.A. § 13 -6 -1 1; 4WD Part C tr., 26 0 Ga. Ap p. at34 5. Th at“ atto rn ey s’ fees ” wou ldbe subs um edwithi n the Po li cy ’s refer en ce t o “ da m ag es ” is no t co ns is te ntwith apl ai n, o rd in ary-m ean in g read in g o f th e Po li cy . Furt he rm or e, th atatt orne y s’ fees are p artof t he “ ex pe ns es of li ti ga ti on ” u nd er § 13 -6 -1 1 d oe s n otm ean th ey be co m e “ da m ag es ” u nd er the Po li cy . The Po li cy

co ve rs da m ag es an d c os ts bu t n ot ab ly doe s n otm en ti on at to rn ey s’ fees
. Thi s p la in -la ng ua ge co nc lu si on is als o s up po rte d b y th e Po li cy ’s st ru ctur e. See O.C.G.A. § 1 3- 2- 2( 4) (st at in g t ha t “ th e who le co ntractsh ou ldbe lo ok edto in arri vi ng at the co ns tru ct io n o f an y pa rt” ). The Po li cy ’s Ins ur in g Ag reem en t fo r Co ve rag e B i nc lu de s t hi s “ da m ag es ” in de m ni ty: W e wil l pa y t h o s e su m s th at th e in su red be co m es le ga ll y ob li ga te d to pa y as da m ag es be cau se of pe rs on al in jury or adve rti si ng in

jury to whi ch th is in su ran ce ap pl ie s. W e wil l ha ve t h e r i g ht an d du ty to de fen d an y su it se ek in g t h o s e da m ag es . W e m ay at ou r di sc ret io n in ve st ig at e an y oc cu rren ce o r of

fen se an d s et tl e an y

cla im or s ui t t ha t m ay

res ul t. . . .
25The In su rin g Ag reem en t p la ces in sep arat e se nt en ces Alea ’s ob li ga ti on s t o (1 ) pa y

da m ag es AHS bec om es ob li ga te d t o p ay , (2) de fen d l aws ui ts ag ai ns t AHS, an d (3 ) in ve st ig at e an d s et tl e cl ai m s. Inth e n ex t p arag rap h, t ha t In su rin g Ag reem en t t he n st at es : “No o th er o bl ig at io n o r li ab il it y to pa y su m s o r pe rfo rm

act s o r se rv ic es is
co ve redun le ss ex pl ic it ly pro vi de d fo r un de r SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENT – COVERAGES A AND B.” Intu rn , th e se pa rat e Supp le m en ta ry Paym en t s ect io n o f th e Po li cy , referred to ab ov e, de sc rib es Alea ’s paym en t o bl ig at io ns “ wit h re sp ectto an y cla im or s ui t we de fen d.” Thes e “ Supp le m en ta l Pa ym en t” ob li ga ti on s ar e ex pr es sl y li st edas: (1 ) ex pe ns es in cu rredby A le a in de fen di ng AHS’ s l aws ui ts ; (2 ) co stof c ert ai n bo nd s; (3) reas on ab le ex pe ns es AHS in cu rs at Al ea’s req ue stin in ve st ig at in g o r de fen di ng th e la wsu it ; (4 ) al l co st s t ax edag ai ns t AHS i n t he laws ui t; (5) pre jud gm en t i nt eres t; an d (6 ) po st -jud gm en t i nt eres t. No tabl y ab se ntis an y
supp le m en ta ry

pa ym en t fo r at to rn ey s’ fees forcla im an ts ag ai ns t AHS. Ther e is no lan gu ag e inth is Po li cy pro vi si on , or a ny oth er p ro vi si on of t he Po li cy cit edby A HS, th atlea ds to th e co nc lu si on th atth e in su ran ce co nt ract
co nt em pl at edth atAleawou ldin de m ni fy AHS forit s o pp on en ts ’ at to rn ey s’ fees
. Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng

26th atAleais no t o bl ig at edto in de m ni fy AHS foratt orne y s’ fees ass es se d i n t he st at e la wsu it
. VI. CONCLUSI ON Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s as to th e $5 00 pe r-cl ai m an t d educ ti bl e an d t he att orne y s’ fees . W e rev ers e th e d is tri ct
co urt’s ru li ng th atth e Po li cy ’s puni ti ve da m ag es ex cl us io n app li es to tre bl e da m ag es un de r th e TCPA. W e rem an d fo r furth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith th is op in io n. 1 8 AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

We deny Fa stSi gns’s and Ale a’s motions to supplement the rec ord on appe al. 1 8 27