2 9 7 Ga . 1 36

F INAL COP Y

S 1 5 Q0 2 8 6 . F CCI INS URANCE COMP ANY v . Mc LENDON

ENTERP RIS ES , INC. e t a l.

HINES , P re sid in g Ju stic e

.

Th is c a se is b e fo re th is C o u rt o n a c e rtifie d q ue stio n fro m th e Un ite d

S ta te s C o u rt o f Ap p e a ls fo r th e Ele v e n th Circ u it 1 in litig a tio n se e k i n g

d e c la ra t o r y r e l ie f re g a rd in g th e rig hts of re c o ve ry o f a n in su re d u n d e r a n

u n in su re d m o to rist in su ra n ce p o lic y

. S e e FCCI In s. Co

. v

. Mc L e n d o n

En te rp rise s , 2 0 1 3 WL 6 7 3 1 4 2 0 (S .D. Ga . 2 0 1 3 ).

Th e q u e stio n c e rtifie d is:

Ca n a n in su re d p a rty re c o v e r u n d e r an u n in su re d-m oto rist

in su ra n c e p o lic y pro v id in g th a t th e in su re r will p a y su m s “th e in su re d is le ga lly e n title d to re c o v e r a s c o m p e nsa to ry d a m a g e s fro m th e o wn e r o r d riv e r o f a n u n in su re d m o to r ve h ic le ” d e sp ite th e

p a rtia l so v e re ig n im m

u n ity o f th e to rtfe a so r?

We a nswe r th e q u e stio n in th e a ffirm a tiv e

.

BACKGROUND

Th e c e rtifi e d q u e stio n a rise s fro m a d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t a c tio n re la te d

1 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI , Sec. VI , Par. I V; OCGA § 15-2-9.to u n d e r i n su re d m o to rist c o v e ra g e 2 u n d e r a c o m m e rc ia l a uto in su ra nc e p o lic y

issu e d b y FCCI In su ra n c e Co m p a n y (“ F CCI” ). 3 T h e litig a tio n is th e re su lt o f a

S e p te m b e r 2 2

, 2 0 1 1 c o llisio n b e twe e n a Mc Le nd on E n t e r p rise s, In c

.

(“ Mc L e nd o n” ) tru c k d riv e n b y Mc Le n d o n e m p lo y e e Bro o k s L a ma r Mitc h e ll

(“ Mitc h e ll” ) an d o c c u p ie d b y Elija h P ro fit III (“ P ro fit” ) a n d Bo b by Bro o k s

Mitc h e ll (“ Bo b b y ” ) a n d a n Ev a n s Co u n ty sc h o o l b us driv e n b y Jo h n Ru sh

Ha a rtje (“ H a a rtje ” ). P ro fit, Bo b by , an d Mitc h e ll c la im e d in ju rie s a s a re su lt o f

th e c o llisio n

. In Ma y 2 0 13

, Mitc he ll file d su it in sta te c o u rt a ga in st Ha a rtje a n d

th e Ev an s Co u n ty B o a rd o f Ed u c a t i o n ( “ Bo ard ” ) to re c o v e r fo r h is a lle g e d

d a m a g e s. Mitc h e ll se rv e d F CCI a s Mc Le n d o n ’ s u n in su re d m o to rist (UM)

c a rrie r. At th e tim e of th e c o llisio n , th e S c h o o l Distric t h a d a n in su ra n c e p o lic y

with GS B A Risk

Ma n a g e m e n t S e rv ic e s (“ GS BA” ) with a $ 1

, 0 0 0 ,0 00 liab ility

lim it. U n d e r t h e p o lic y , GS BA p a id o u t th e $ 1 ,0 0 0,0 0 0 liab ility lim its fo r

d a m a g e s re la te d to th e c ollisio n

. It se ttle d w ith P ro fit a n d Bo b b y fo r $3 5 0 ,0 0 0

c o m b in e d a n d a g re e d to p a y M itc h e ll th e re m a in in g $ 6 5 0 ,0 00 in e xc h a n g e fo r

2 I f the motorist is uninsured or underi n sured, the statutory characteriz ation is that of “uninsured.” See OCGA § 33-7-11 (b) (1) (D) (ii).

3 The policy

was effective from J

une 30, 2011 throug h J une 30, 2012.

2a lim ite d liab ility re le a se , th e re b y e xh a u stin g its $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 liab ility lim its. 4 It

is u n d isp u te d th a t th e S c h o o l Distric t a n d Ha a rtje a re im m u n e fro m a n y liab ility

a b o v e th e lim its o f th e GS BA p o lic y

. Mitc h e ll file d fo r UM b e n e fits fro m

F CCI. F CCI d e n ie d lia

b ility o n th e b a s i s o f th e a t-fa u lt d riv e r’s sta tu to ry

im m u n ity

.

P ROCEEDINGS IN F EDERAL COURT

F CCI file d a c o m

pla in t fo r d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t in t h e Un ite d S ta te s

Distric t C o u rt fo r th e So u t h e r n D istric t of Ge o rg ia se e k in g a d e c la ra tio n a n d

ju d g m e n t th a t it w a s n o t o b lig a te d to d e fe nd

, in d e mn ify

, o r e x p e nd a n y su m s o n

b e h a lf o f Mc Le n do n fo r a n y d a m a g e s o r b od ily in ju ry a lle g e d ly a risin g fro m th e

2 0 1 1 c ollisio n

. Ap p ly in g Ge o rg ia la w, th e Distric t Co u rt de te rm in e d th a t

Mitc h e ll c o u ld re c o v e r u n d e r Mc Le n d o n ’s po lic y with F C CI, wh ic h p ro m ise d

to p a y su m s Mitc h e ll wa s “ le g a lly e n title d to re c o v e r” f r o m an un in su re d

m o to rist. Th e Distric t C o u rt fo u n d th a t Mitc h e ll c ou ld d o so e v e n th o u g h Ev an s

Co u n ty ’s p a rtia l so v e re ig n imm u n ity p re v e n te d h im fro m e sta b lish in g i n a

la wsu it th a t h e wa s le g a lly e n title d to re c o v e r th e fu ll a m ou nt o f h is d a ma g e s

4 Mitchell also made claims ag ainst personal auto insurers, F oremost I nsurance Company and Prog r essive I nsurance Company

, a nd th e i n surers each paid its UM policy limits of $100,000 and $50,000 respectively

.

3fro m Ev a n s Co un ty

. In re a c h in g t h a t d e c isio n , th e Distric t Co u rt sp e c ific a lly

lo o k e d to T

in sle y v

. W o rld w id e In s. Co

. , 2 12 Ga

. Ap p

. 80 9 (4 4 2 S E2 d 8 7 7 )

(1 9 9 4 ) fo r g u id a

n c e

. Tin sle

y h e ld th a t a n in su re d c o u p le c o u ld m a in ta in a c la im

u n d e r th e ir UM c o v e ra ge n o twith sta n d in g th e c o m p le te so v e re ig n im m

u n ity o f

th e pa rty th a t in

ju re d th e m (i.e

., th e to rtfe a so r ) a n d t h e ir re su ltin g in a b ility to

e s t a b lish in c o u rt th a t th e y we re “ le g a lly e n title d to re c o v e r” fro m th a t p a r t y

. 5

Th e Distric t Co u rt fo un d T in sle y “ p e rsu a si ve an d e x te n d [e d ] its so u nd re a so n in g

to to rtfe a so rs wh o a re p a rt i a l l y p ro te c te d b y so v e re ig n im m u n ity .” On a

p p e a l

b y F C CI to th e Ele v e n th Circ u it, th e Ele v e n th C irc uit c o n c lu d e d th a t in a sm u c h

a s n e ith e r th is C o u rt n o r th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls o f G eo rg ia h a s a d d re sse d su c h

situ a tio n , t h e a

p p e a l h in ge s o n a n issu e of Ge o rg ia la w fo r w h ic h th e re is n o

c le a r, c o n tro llin g p re c e d e n t, a n d c e rtifie d th e q u e stio n

.

5 I n 1994, whe n T

i n s l e y was decided, OCGA § 33-7-11 (a) (1) provided that an uninsured motorist carrier “pay the insured all sums which he shall be leg ally entitled to recover as damag es from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. . . .” The statute was a mended in 2006,

a n d i n subparag r aph (a) (1), such lang uag e was removed, and substituted w as: “ pay the ins u r e d damag es for bodily injury

, loss of consortium or death o f an insured, or for injury to or d estruction
of property of an insured under the named insured' s policy sustained from the owner or operator of

an uninsure d motor vehicle.

. . .” The Court of Appeals has opined that such amendment was not intended to “eviscerate the requirement for a judg ment ag ainst the uninsured motorist.” Durrah v.

State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

, 312 Ga. App. 4 9, 52 ( 2) (717 SE2d 554) (2011). This Court need not
address that question because even based upon prior i n t e r p r etations of the p re-2006 statutory lang uag e, w hich is the lang uag e in the insurance p olicy at issue, w e hold that the insured party can recover UM benefits in this case.

4DIS CUS S ION

Th e Distric t Co u rt pro p e rly a p p lie d th e ra tio n a le a n d ho ld in g o f T i n sle y

v

. W orld wid e In s. C o

. , su p ra to th e c a se a t b a r. As th e Distric t Co u rt n o te d

, th e

fo c u s o f th e d isp ute is th e in su ra n c e c o n tra c t' s p h ra se “ le g a lly e n title d to

re c o v e r.” 6 F CCI a rg ue d th a t th e p h ra se m e a n t th a t re c o v e ry fro m th e to rtfe a so r

wa s p o ssib le

, wh ile Mitc h e ll a rg u e d th a t th e p h ra se m e a n t th a t th e in su re d h a d

to s h o w th a t th e fa ult o f th e u n in su re d m o to rist g a v e rise to d a m a g e s. Afte r

fin d in g th a t th e in su ra n c e po lic y wa s a m b ig u o u s in th is re g a rd

, th e Di s t ric t

Co u rt d e c id e d th e issu e b a se d u p o n sta te sta tu te

, na m e ly OCGA § 3 3 -2 4 -5 1

, a n d

sta te c a se la w, sp e c ific a lly

, T in sle y v

. W o rld w id e In s. Co

. , su p ra

.

OCGA § 3 3 -2 4 -5 1p ro v id e s in re le v a n t p art:

(a ) A m u n ic ip a l c o rp o ra tio n, a c ou nty

, o r a n y o th e r p o litic a l

su b d iv isio n o f th is sta te is a u th o riz e d in its disc re tio n to se c u re a n d

p ro v id e in su ra n c e to c o v e r l i a b ility fo r d a m a g e s o n a c c o u n t o f
b o d ily in ju ry o r d e a th re su ltin g fro m b o d ily in ju ry to an y p e rso n o r fo r d a m a g e to p ro p e rty o f a n y pe rso n , o r fo r b o th a risin g b y re a so n

o f o wn e rsh ip

, m a in te n a

n c e , o p e ra tio n , o r u se o f an y m o to r v e h ic le
b y th e m

u n ic ip a l c o rp o ra tio n , c o u n ty

, o r an y oth e r p o lit i c a l

6 The policy states in relevant part that “after the limits of lia b i l i ty under any applicable liability bonds or policies have been e x hausted by pay ment of judg ments or settlements,” F CCI will

pay “all sums in ex cess of the applicable deductible option .

. . that the ‘insured’ is leg ally entitled

to recover as compensatory damag e s from the owner or d river of an ‘uninsured motor vehicle.’” The policy then provides that an u nderinsured motor vehicle is a n “ uninsured motor vehicle” if damag es

ex c eed the limits of all applicable liability bonds or policies.

5su b d iv isio n o f th is sta te u n de r its m a n a g e m e nt

, c o n t ro l, o r

su p e rv isio n , wh e th e r in a g o v e rn m e n ta l u nd e rta k in g o r n o t, a n d to

p a y p re m iu m s fo r th e in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e

. (b ) Th e so ve re ig n im m

u n ity o f l o c a l go v e rn m e n t e n titie s fo r a lo ss a risin g o u t o f c la im s fo r th e n e g lig e n t u se o f a c o v e re d m o to r

v e h ic le is wa iv e d a s p ro v id e d in Co d e Se c tio n 3 6 -9 2-2

. 7

7 OCGA § 36-92-2 provides:

(a) The sovereig n immun i t y of local g overnment entities for a loss arising out of claims for the neg lig ent use o f a c o v e r e d motor vehicle is waived up to the following limits: (1) $100,000.00 because of bodily injury or d eath of any o ne person in any o n e occurrence, an ag g reg ate amount of $ 300,000.00 because
of b o d ily injury or death of two or more persons in any o ne

occurrence, and $50,000.00 because of injur y t o o r destruction of
property in any one occurrence, f or i n c i d en t s occurring on or a fter

J a nuary 1, 2005, and until December 31, 2006; (2) $250,000.00 because of bodily injury or d eath of any o ne person in any one occurrence, an a g g reg ate amount of $ 450,000.00 because
of b o d ily injury or death of two or more persons in any o ne

occurrence, and $50,000.00 because o f i n j u r y to or destruction of
property i n a n y one o ccurrence, for incidents occurring on or a fter

J a nuary 1, 2007, and until December 31, 2007; and (3) $500,000.00 because of bodily injury or d eath of any o ne person in any one occurrence, an ag g reg ate amount of $ 700,000.00 because
of b o d ily injury or death of two or more persons in any o ne

occurrence, and $50,000.00 be c a u s e o f injury to or destruction of
property in any one occurrence, f or incidents o cc u r r i n g on or a fter

J a nuary 1, 2008. (b) The sovereig n immunity of local g overnment entities for a l o s s arising out of claims for the neg lig ent u s e o f a c o vered motor vehicle is
waived only to the ex tent and in the manner provided in this chapter and only with respect to actions broug ht in the courts of this state. This chapter shall

not be construe d t o a f

f ect any claim o r c ause of action otherwise p ermitted by law and for which the defense of sovereig n immunity

is not available. (c) L ocal g overnment entities shall have no liability for losses resulting from conduct on any part o f local g overnment officers o r employ ees which was not within the scope of their official duties or employ ment. (d) The waiver provided by this c hapter shall be increased to the

ex tent that:

(1) T he g o verning body of the local g o vernmental entity by resolution or ordinance voluntarily adopts a hig her waiver;

6Wh e n e v e r a m u n ic ip a l c o rp o ra tio n, a c o u n ty

, or a n y o th e r po litic a l

su b d iv isio n o f th is sta te sh a ll p u rc h a se th e in su ra n c e a u th o riz e d b y

su b se c tio n (a ) o f th is Co d e se c tio n to p ro v id e liab ility c o v e ra g e fo r th e n e g lig e n c e of a ny d u ly a u th o riz e d o f

fic e r, a g e n t, se rv a n t,

a tto rn e y , o r e m

p lo y e e in t h e p e r f

o rm a n c e o f h is o r h e r o ffic ia l
d u tie s in a n a m ou nt g re a te r th a n th e a m o u n t o f im m u n ity wa iv e d a s in Co d e S e c tio n 3 6 -9 2 -2

, its g o ve rn m e n ta l i mmu n ity sh a ll b e

wa iv e d to th e e x te n t o f th e a m o u n t o f in su ra n c e s o p u rc h a se d

. Ne ith e r th e m

u n ic ip a l c o rp o ra tio n, c ou n ty

, o r p o litic a l su b d iv isio n

o f th is sta te n o r th e in su rin g c o m p an y sh a ll p le a d g o v e rn m e n ta l

im m u n ity a s a d e fe nse ; a n d th e m u nic ip a l c o r po ra tio n , c o u n ty

, o r

p o litic a l su b d iv isio n o f th is sta te o r th e in su rin g c o m p a n y m a y m a k e

o n ly th o se d e fe n se s wh ic h c o u ld b e m a d e if th e in s u r e d we re a

p riv a te p e rso n

. (c ) Th e m u n ic ip a l c o rp ora tio n , c o u n ty

, o r a n y o th e r po litic a l

su b d iv isio n o f th is sta te sh a ll b e liable fo r d a m a g e s in e x c e ss of th e

a m o u nt o f im m

u n ity wa iv e d a s p ro v id e d in Co d e S e c tio n 3 6-9 2 -2
wh ic h a re su sta in e d o n ly wh ile th e in su ra n c e is in fo rc e a n d on ly to
th e e x te n t o f th e lim its o r th e c o v e ra g e o f th e in su ra n c e p o lic y

.

. . .

Th u s, th e re is e xp re ss sta tu to ry p ro visio n fo r th e wa iv e r o f so v e re ig n

im m u n ity b y a lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity to th e e x te nt th a t it p u rc h a se s liab ility

in su ra n c e in a n a mo u n t in e x c e ss o f th e lim its se t fo rth in OCGA § 3 6 -9 2 -2

.

(2) The local g overnment entity becomes a member of an interlocal risk manag ement

ag ency created pursuant to Chapter 85 of this titl e to the ex tent that coverag e obtained ex ceeds the amount of the waiver set forth in this Code section; or ( 3 ) T h e l o ca l go v er nment entity purchases commercial liability insurance in a n amount in ex cess of the waiver set forth in this Code section. (e) I nterest p rior to judg ment may be recovered pursuant to the “Unliquidated Damag es I nterest A ct” as provided for i n Code Section 51-12-14; however, any

recovery of interest prior to judg ment shall be included within the a p p l i c able

ag g reg ate amount per occurrence as set forth in this Code section.

7Ga te s v

. Gla ss , 2 9 1 Ga

. 3 5 0

, 3 5 2 -3 5 3 (7 2 9 S E 2 d 3 61 ) (2 01 2). An d

, th e sta tu te

m a k e s p la in th a t th e go ve rn m e n ta l e n t i ty

, in th is c a se Ev a n s Co u n ty

, is to b e

tre a te d a s a

p riv a te pe rso n fo r d e fe n siv e p u rp o se s in a n a c tio n su c h a s th is. As

th e Distric t Co u rt sta te d, Ev a n s Co u n ty ’s a b ility to c o m

p e n sa te Mitc h e ll fo r h is

d a m a g e s is lim ite d to th e GS BA $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 in su ra n c e p o lic y

. T h u s, if d a m a ge s

su sta in e d by M itc h e ll e x c e e d th e $ 6 5 0 ,0 00 a llo c a t e d to h im u n d e r th e GS BA

p o lic y a n d a n y re c o v e ry fro m o th e r a pp lic a b le in su ra n c e b on ds o r p o lic ie s, th e n

h e c a n b e m a d e wh o le o n ly b y re so rtin g to th e F CCI in su ra n c e p o lic y

.

As no te d

, in Tin sle

y v

. W orld w id e In s. C o

. , th e C o u r t o f Ap p e a ls

c o n c lu d e d th a t a p la in tiff sh o u ld b e le g a lly e n title d to re c o v e r fro m a n in su ra n c e

c o m p a ny e v e n wh e n so v e r e i g n im m u n ity c o m

p le te ly b a rs re c o v e ry fro m th e

to rtfe a so r, a n d c o n se q u e n tly

, th e p l a in tiff is u n a b le to first su e and re c o v e r a

ju d g m e n t a ga in st th e u n in su re d m o to rist, wh ic h u n d e r th e Un in su re d Mo to rist

Ac t (“ th e Ac t” ), O CGA § 3 3 -7 -1 1 e t se q ., g e n e ra lly h a s b e e n c o n s i d e r e d a

c o n ditio n p re c e d e n t to a su it a g a in st th e in su ra n c e c a rrie r. Th is Co u rt in

W ilk in so n v

. Vig ila n t In s. Co

. , 2 3 6 Ga

. 4 5 6 (2 24 S E 2 d 1 67 ) (1 9 76 ), d e te rm in e d

th a t th is g e n e ra l ru le sh o u ld n o t a p p ly in a situ a tio n in wh ic h a ju d g m e n t c o u ld

n o t b e ob ta in e d a ga in st th e u n in su re d m o t o r i s t

, a lb e it su c h de te rm in a tio n wa s

8m a d e in th e sp e c ific c irc u m sta n c e o f a d isc h a rg e in b a n k ru p tc y

. Th e g e n e ra l ru le

wa s h e ld in a

p p lic a b le b e c a u se th e Ac t “ w a s in te nd e d to a llo w fo r th e

a d ju dic a tio n of th e in su re r' s liab ility to t h e i n su re d u nd e r th e c o ntra c t o f

in su ra n c e wh e th e r th e u n in su re d mo to rist is k n o wn o r u n k n o wn ; th u s, th e

in su ra n c e c o m

p a n y is th e re a l p a rty in in te re st a nd n o t th e u n in su re d m o to rist.”

T in sle y v

. W o rld wid e In s.Co

. , su p ra a t 8 1 0

. In d e e d

, “ t o al l o w an in su re r to

e sc a p e liab ility u n d e r its c on tra c t b e c a u se o f th e u n in su re d m o to rist' s” im m u n ity

fro m su it, “ wo uld b e c o n tra ry to th e p u rp o se o f th e Ac t.” Id

.

Th e re is n o m er i t o rio u s re a so n fo r n o t a p p ly in g su c h re a so n in g to a

to rtfe a so r wh o is p a rtia lly sh ie ld e d b y so v e re ig n im m u n ity

. Ce rta in ly

, it d e fie s

lo g ic to re fu se to a llo w a n in su ra nc e c o m p a n y to a vo id its fin an c ia l o blig a tio n s

in t h e situ a tio n in wh ic h th e to rtfe a so r is fu lly sh ie ld e d fro m litig a tio n b y th e

c lo a k o f so v e re ig n im m

u n ity

, a n d y e t to p e rm it it t o d o so w h e n th e to rtfe a so r

c a n c la im o n ly pa rtia l so v e re ig n im m u n ity

.

Also , a s o b se rv e d b y th e Distric t Co u rt,

to c o n c lu d e o t

h e r w i s e w o u ld in c e n tiv iz e c o u n tie s wh o wish to a llo w

a c c id e n t v ic tim re c o v e ry to n ot p u rc h a se liab ility in su ra n c e u n d e r [OCGA] § 33 -2 4

- 5 1

. Vic tim s o f fu lly im m u n e c o u n tie s c o u ld

p u rsu e re c ov e ry un d e r u n in su re d mo t o rist p ro v isio n s, b u t v ic tim s in c o u n tie s w i t h s o me liab ility in su ra nc e c o u ld n o t. Assu m in g th e

9liab ility in su ra n c e p o lic y lim its fe ll b e lo w th e a m o un t o f a v ic tim ' s

d a m a g e s, a v ic tim in a c o u n ty with liab ility in su ra nc e w o u ld re c ov e r le ss th a n o n e in a c o u n ty with o u t c o v e ra g e

. Su c h re su lt is c o n tra ry

to [OCGA] § 3 3 -2 4-5 1 ' s g o a l o f in c re a sin g c o m p e n sa tio n fo r th o se in ju re d b y e m

p lo y e e s o f th e sta te

.

S e e Crid e r v

. Z u ric h In s. Co

. , 2 2 2 Ga

. Ap p. 1 77

, 1 7 9 (1 ) (4 74 S E2 d 8 9 ) (1 9 9 6 )

(le g isla tiv e in te n t in e n a c tin g a wa iv e r o f so v e re ig n im m un ity wa s to a llo w fo r

c o m p e nsa tio n o f p a r t i e s in

ju re d b y e m

p lo y e e s an d a g e n ts o f th e sta te th ro u g h

th e p u rc ha se o f lia b ility in su ra n c e wh e re re c o ve ry is o th e rwise b a rre d ).

F in a lly

, to tre a t th is situ a tio n in wh ic h th e a t-fa u lt d riv e r h a s in a d e q u a te

in su ra n c e , i.e

., is u n d e rin su re d

, d isp a ra te ly fro m th a t in T in sle y , wh e re th e a tfa u lt driv e r h a d n o in su ra n c e , i.e

., is u n in su re d

, ig n o re s b o th Ge org ia ’s sta tu to ry

d e fin itio n o f “ u n in su re d m o to rist” wh ic h e n co m p a sse s th e m o to rist wh o is

“ u n de rin su re d ” a

n d th e p la in l a n g u a g e o f th e FCCI in su ra n c e p o lic y a t issu e

.

S e e fo o tn o te s 2 a n d 6 , su p ra

.

CONCLUS ION

A n i n s u r e d p a

r t y c a n re c o v e r u n de r a n u n in su re d m o to rist in su ra n c e p o l i c y

p ro v id in g th a t th e in su re r will p a y su m s “th e in su re d is le g a lly e n t i t l e d t o

re c o v e r a s c o m

p e n sa to ry d a m a g e s fro m th e o wn e r o r d riv e r o f a n un in su re d

m o to r v e h ic le ” d e sp ite th e p a rtia l so v e re ig n im m u n ity o f th e to rtfe a so r.

10Ce rtifie d q u e stio n a n swe re d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

De c id e d Ma y 1 1 , 2 0 1 5

.

Ce rtifie d q u e stio n fro m th e Un ite d S ta te s Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls fo r th e

Ele v e n th Circ u it.

Go o d m a n M c Gu ffe y Lin dse y & Jo h n so n , Ro b e rt M

. Da rro c h

, S te p h a n ie

F . Glic k a u f, fo r a pp e lla n t.

Bry a n t & Co o k

, Ma lc o lm F

. Bry a n t, Jr., P a u l K. Co o k

, Da n i e l J

.

O’Co n n o r; Ba rt, Me y e r & Co m p a ny , An sle y B. Th re lk e ld ; Th o m a s W. Ev e re tt,

fo r a p p e lle e s.

11