[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13134

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03483-SCJ

AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THE ABRAM LAW GROUP, LLC,

RICHARD S. ABRAM,

NORTH COAST TITLE, LLC,

CHERYL MEDLEY,

Defendants-Appellants,

BBC PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(February 14, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 7 
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants the Abram Law Group, Richard S. Abram, North Coast Title, 

LLC, and Cheryl Medley appeal the district court’s judgment on the pleadings to 

American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (American Guarantee). 

The district court concluded that, inter alia, American Guarantee had no duty to 

defend the underlying lawsuit against Appellants because the claims in the 

underlying lawsuit were either based on or related to acts or omissions occurring 

before May 1, 2006. Appellants contend (1) the district court erred in determining 

the prior acts exclusion in the parties’ professional liability insurance policy bars 

coverage if the claims are causally connected in any way with an act or omission 

that took place prior to May 1, 2006; and (2) even accepting the district court’s 

interpretation of the policy’s language, the district court erred because the 

underlying lawsuit alleged certain acts and omissions that were not “based on” any 

acts or omissions that occurred prior to May 1, 2006. After review,1 we affirm the 

district court’s judgment. 

American Guarantee’s Amended Complaint sought a declaratory judgment 

that the “prior acts exclusion” in its policy barred coverage for an underlying 

lawsuit against the Appellants. The prior acts exclusion states: “This policy 

 1

 “We review de novo a district court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings, accepting the 

facts in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party.” Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2002).

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 2 of 7 
3

specifically excludes coverage for Damages and Claim Expenses because of 

Claims brought against any Insured based on any act or omission or any Related 

Act or Omission that occurred or is alleged to have occurred prior to 5/01/06.” 

The underlying lawsuit was brought against Appellants by a real estate 

developer, BBC Partners, LLC, and a bank, RM Kids, LLC, over the failed 

development of a residential subdivision in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Count One 

of the underlying lawsuit alleged malpractice by Appellants in a real estate closing 

on January 26, 2006, which involved a $7.35 million loan BBC Partners borrowed

from RM Kids on a short-term basis to purchase a 114-acre tract of land for the 

subdivision (the Acquisition Loan). Count Two of the underlying lawsuit alleged 

fraud and conspiracy by Appellants in a real estate closing on April 23, 2007, 

which was done in order to cover up the alleged malpractice committed on January 

26, 2006. As part of the April 2007 closing, BBC Partners borrowed an additional 

$2.5 million from RM Kids (the Development Loan) to develop the property 

purchased through the Acquisition Loan. 

The underlying lawsuit alleges Abram and Medley committed wrongful acts 

in both closings. As to the Acquisition Loan closing, it alleges that Abram and 

Medley committed malpractice by failing to identify three exceptions to the 

property’s title: (1) certain environmental restrictions contained in a prior deed 

from Colonial Pipeline; (2) a waterline easement; and (3) a driveway easement.

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 3 of 7 
4

The underlying suit further alleges that BBC Partners discovered the waterline and 

driveway easements prior to the Development Loan closing, and that BBC was 

seeking coverage for these errors under the title insurance policy Abram issued in 

the Acquisition Loan as the agent of Old Republic National Title Insurance 

Company (Old Republic).

As to the Development Loan closing, the underlying suit alleges the 

Appellants fraudulently schemed to close the Development Loan in such a way as 

to eliminate Old Republic’s liability for Abram’s and Medley’s errors in the 

Acquisition Loan closing. The lawsuit alleges Abram and Medley sent out 

quitclaim deeds to release the Acquisition Loan security deed and terminate Old 

Republic’s obligation under the Acquisition Loan title insurance policy. Abram 

and Medley also added the water line easement and the driveway easement as 

exceptions in the Development Loan closing documents. Further, Abram and 

Medley failed to issue the owner’s title insurance policy to BBC Partners. The 

lawsuit alleges Abram unethically circumvented BBC Partners’ attorney to cause 

BBC Partners to execute a new deed with the additional exceptions. Abram also 

failed to advise RM Kids that he had a conflict of interest based on the errors he 

committed in the Acquisition Loan.

Old Republic filed a cross-claim against the Abram Law Group. In Count 

One, Old Republic contends the Abram Law Group is liable for any judgment 

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 4 of 7 
5

entered against Old Republic for the alleged fraud and conspiracy to eliminate its 

liability for the Acquisition Loan errors. In Count Two, Old Republic alleges the 

Abram Law Group was negligent in failing to identify the original three exceptions 

to title. 

Abram and Medley tendered the lawsuit and cross-claim to American 

Guarantee and requested a defense. American Guarantee agreed to provide a 

defense subject to a reservation of rights and brought this declaratory judgment 

action. 

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the prior acts exclusion 

bars coverage for any claim connected to the January 26, 2006, Acquisition Loan 

closing. The prior acts clause excludes coverage “based on any act or omission or 

any Related Act or Omission that occurred or is alleged to have occurred prior to” 

May 1, 2006. The policy defines “Related Act or Omission” as “an act or omission 

that forms the basis for two or more claims, where a series of continuous, repeated, 

interrelated or causally connected acts or omissions give rise to one or more claims 

. . . .”

Though Appellants contend Count Two alleging fraud in the underlying 

lawsuit relates only to the April 23, 2007, Development Loan closing and thus is 

covered under the policy, the acts and omissions giving rise to the malpractice 

claim from the January 26, 2006, Acquisition Loan closing also undergird the 

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 5 of 7 
6

fraud claim regarding the Development Loan. The alleged negligence involved in 

the Acquisition Loan closing is the necessary predicate to the fraudulent scheme to 

extinguish the 2006 lender’s title insurance policy and fraudulent insertion of 

additional exceptions to the 2007 title insurance policy. Further, the claims that 

(1) Abram dealt directly with BBC Partners to ensure the deed to secure debt 

containing the additional exceptions was signed, (2) the owner’s title insurance 

policy listing the additional exceptions was not issued so the exceptions would not 

be discovered, and (3) Abram failed to disclose the conflict of interest, all flow 

from Abram’s and Medley’s alleged failure to disclose the restrictions and 

easements in the January 26, 2006, closing. The district court did not err in 

determining the acts and omissions surrounding the Acquisition Loan closing form 

the basis of the claims regarding the fraud alleged during the Development Loan 

closing, or in finding the other acts or omissions surrounding the Development 

Loan closing were interrelated to or causally connected to the acts or omissions at 

the Acquisition closing. Cf. Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Wendt, 205 F.3d 1258, 1262-63

(11th Cir. 2000) (applying plain meaning of the term “related” to a dispute over 

insurance coverage). 

Additionally, we reject Appellants’ contention that Old Republic’s crossclaim also does not allege any pre-May 1, 2006, acts. The cross-claim alleges a 

fraudulent scheme to eliminate Old Republic’s liability under the Acquisition Loan 

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 6 of 7 
7

title insurance policy for the errors Abram and Medley committed while closing 

the Acquisition Loan. Thus, the acts or omissions surrounding the Acquisition 

Loan are also related to this claim.

The district court did not err in concluding the prior acts exclusion applied to 

exclude coverage of the claims against Appellants in the underlying lawsuit.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 7 of 7