FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPT 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1097 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00502 -CV -BBM- 1 GW ENDOLYNMORGAN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us PACIF IC SPEC IALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (S ep te m be r 9, 200 8) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: The P laintiff G we ndol yn Morgan’ s hous e b urned down. She sought insurance proceeds from

Pac ific Speciality Insurance Com pany (“ PSI C”), which had issued h er an insurance policy

insuring her hom e ag ai n st fire and oth er per ils. PS IC denied2

lia bil ity an d re sc ind ed the pol ic y on the gr ound

tha t M or ga n’ s in sur an ce appl ic at ion contained a m isrepresentation. Morgan sued P SI C. The district court granted
sum m ar y j ud gm en t f

or P SI C o n th e gr ound

tha t P SI C w as e nti tle d to r es ci nd the
co ntr ac t be ca

use of the m isr ep re se nta tio n onthe appl ic at ion
. A ddi tio na lly , the district court held that PSIC w as no t es t opped to deny liabilitybecause Morgan
s i g n ed t h e ap p l i ca t i o n co n t ai n i n g t h e mis re p re s en t at i o n . M o rg a n ap p ea l s . We conclude that there is evidence i n the record from which a j ury could find that PSIC is e sto ppe d to de ny lia

bil ity on the ins ur an ce co ntr ac t, an d ac co rd ing ly w e re ve rs e the di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. A lth oughMo rg an ’ s b r i e f

i s s ty l e d a s pr es en tin g th re e se pa rate iss ue s onappe al , onlyone issue is prop erly before us. Morgan waived the issu e of w hether her
ex pe rt ’ s te sti m ony

w as pr ope rl y ex cl ude d by fa ili ng to pr es en t an y ar gum en t onthe iss ue in he r ap pe lla te br ie f. Mor ga n pr es en ts onl y one a rg um en t i n th e re m ai nde r of he r br ie f, tho ugh sty lin g it a s tw o se pa rate iss ue s. A cc or din gly , the onl y iss ue on ap pe al is whe th er ev id en ce in the r ec or d th at it w as P SI C’ s a ge nt who w ro te the
m isr ep resen ta tio n onthe appl ic at iona ft er ha vin g be entol d by

Mo rg antha t sh e did not kno w the a nsw er

to the que sti on i s su ff

ic ie nt t o su

ppor t a f ind in g th at PSIC is
es to pp edto de ny liabi li ty bas edon th e m is rep res en ta ti on .3

Morgan argues that summ ary j udgmen t i s i n ap p ro p ri at e b ecause the record
co nta ins suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort a f ind ing tha t P SI C i s e sto ppe d to de ny
co ve ra ge ba se d onthe m isr ep re se nta tio n a t i ssu e sin ce it w as PS IC ’ s in sur an ce a ge nt
w ho i nse rt ed

the m isr ep re se nta tio n. S pe ci fi ca lly , Mo rg anstate s th at P SI C’ s a ge nt fi lle d ou t the ins ur an ce appl ic at iona ft er ha vin g a ske d he r the que sti ons ove r the te le phon e. (R
. 2- 62 at 27. ) Whe n PS IC ’ s ag en t as ke d Mor ga n Q ue sti on 17 on the appl ic ation , “ D oe s th e dw el lin g have c oppe r w ir ing a nd c ir cu it br eake rs ?” s he tol d th e ag en t t ha t s he co ul d n ot a n s w e r th e q ue st io n. ( Id

. a t 55 -5 6. ) P SI C’ s a ge nt responded “ Don’ t worr

y a b o u t it, I can handle it, I will take c are of it.” ( Id

. at 5 6.) Whe n M or ga n si gne d th e ap pli ca tio n, she ha d r el ie d onP SI C’ s a ge nt t o take the
an swe r do wn co rrec tl y

an d d id no t g o o ve r th e ap pl ic at io n wi th PSIC’s a ge nt . ( Id

. at 58, 60- 61. ) Mor ga n arg ue s th at sum m ar y j udgm en t i s in ap pr opr ia te be ca use the se fa ct s p ro vi de the e vid en tiary sup port ne ed ed

to fi nd tha t P SI C i s e sto ppe d to de ny
co ve rag e b as edon th e m is rep res en ta ti on in th e an swe r to Ques ti on 17
. U nde r G eo rg ialaw , a n in sur an ce c ompa ny“ is c onsi de re d e sto ppe d to de ny lia bil ity on the ins ur an ce c ontra ct , w he re the ins ur ed ha s gi ve n c or

re ct a nsw er s to que sti ons in the ins ur an ce pol ic y app li cat io n pose d by

the ins ur an ce a ge nt and the insurance agent, e ither through fra ud or neglig ence, has filled in the answer incorrectly .” Libe rty

Na t’ l L ife I

ns. Co

. v . H

ouk , 281 S. E. 2d 58 3, 585 (Ga . 1981).4

Se e P atr iot

G en eral I

ns. Co

. v . M

ill is , 506 S. E
. 2d 1 45, 147 -1 48 ( G a. Ct
. App. 199 8) (“ If ei th er

part y m ust suf fe r fr om a n in sur an ce a ge nt’ s m ist ak e, it m ust be the i n s u ra n ce co m

p an y, [h er ] pr i n ci pal.” quot ing Sti lls on v. P rude nti al I

ns. Co

. , 42 S
. E
. 2d 121, 124 (Ga. 1947 )). Estoppel applies e ven if the insured, after having g iven correct
answer s to the ins urance agent, s igns an application con taining false answers inserted by the in su ran ce ag en t. H ouk , 28 1 S .E.2dat 5 84
. T his state m en t of

the law dif

fe rs sli ght ly fr om tha t used by the dis tr ic t cour t i n its or de r en te ri ng s um

m ar y j udgm en t for PS IC
. T he dis tr ic t cour t r el ie d on B ourn e
v. B alb oa I

ns. Co

. , 240 S. E. 2d 26 1 (Ga . C t. App. 1977), for the p ro p o s i tion th at
es top p e l i s o n l y a v a i l ab l e w h e n a n i n s u r e d s i g n s a n ap p l i c a t i o n w ith a
m isr ep re se nta tio n if

the ins ur ed

w as pr ev en te d th ro ugh fr au d or a rt if ic e fr om r ea din g the do cu m en t. Bu t the S upr em e Co urt of G eo rg iade ci de d in H

ouk tha t e sto ppe l i s
av ai la ble e ve n if

a n in sur ed

m er el y f ai ls t o no tic e the m isr ep re se nta tio n ne gli ge ntl y ins er te d by an ins ur an ce ag en t into an ap pli ca tio n the insure d si gns. G eo rg iac ourts ha ve not ed

the vari an ce be tw ee n th e ru le in H ouk a nd the ru le in B ourn e and hold that H ouk pro vi de s t he co rrec t st at em en t o f th e la w on th is is su e. D av is v
. B row nin g , 311 S.E.2d 16 8, 1 68 (Ga. 19 84 ) (Ma rs ha ll , J., co nc ur rin g s pe ci al ly). PSIC arg ue s t ha t t he re is no ev id en ce t o s up po rt a fin di ng of e st op pe l fo r two
re as on s. Fi rs t, P SI C arg ue s th at a n a ge nt m

ust kno w ing ly

e nte r a fa lse a nsw er

in5

order for estoppel t o ap p l y. Since Morgan stated that she did n ot kno w the answer to Q ue st ion 17 and t old P SI C’ s a ge nt a s m

uc h, P SI C c ont en ds tha t the re is no evidence that its agent knew th e “ y es” answer he filled in to Question 17 was false. The S upr em e Co urt of

G eo rg iastate d in H

ouk , ho w e ve r , t ha t a n a ge nt ’ s e ntryof a fa lse a nsw er

thr ough negli

gence is e noug h to e sto p th e ins ur an ce c om pa ny to de ny liabilityon the basis o f the fa lse answer
. 281 S.E .2d at 58 5. V iewing the evidence in the ligh t m ost favorable to Morgan, w e hold that th ere is a m aterial question of fact as to whether M organ answere d Question 17 correctly an d PS IC ’s agent, e ither intentio nally

or negligently , f

illed in a false answ er. Se co nd, P SI C ar gue s that be ca use it did not pr ev en t M or ga n f ro m r ea din g th e policy before signing it, estoppel is not ap p l i ca ble here. H owever , a s noted abo ve, th is is an in co rrec t u nd ers ta nd in g o f Geo rg ia law. Be ca use the re is a que stion o f fa ct a s to w he the r Mor ga n answ er ed Q ue sti on 17 c or re ct ly an d PS IC ’ s ag en t the n, e ith er int en tio na lly

or ne gli ge ntl y , f

ill ed in a fa lse
answer , and because such a finding would supp ort a conclusion th at PSI C is estopped to deny coverage based on the m isrepresentation in Question 1 7, PS IC is not entitled to su m m ary jud gm en t. Fo r the r e a s o n s s t a t e d ab o v e , w e r e v e r s e t h e g r a n t o f s u m m a ry j u d g m en t i n favor of P SI C and r em an d f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. REVERSED AND REMANDED.