[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15322

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-01069-ELR

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., 

as Successor in Interest by Merger to Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant,

 

versus

ARCHITECTURAL GLAZING SYSTEMS, INC., 

Defendant - Cross Defendant -

Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,

SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., 

Defendant - Counter Claimant - Cross 

Claimant -Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,

MARSHA TURNER, et al., 

 Defendants,

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 1 of 11 
2

SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

 Defendant - Cross Defendant - Appellee,

AGS WATERPROOFING, LLC., et al., 

 Third Party Defendants.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(September 23, 2016)

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Appellant Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (Sunbelt) appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of Selective Insurance Company of South 

Carolina (Selective) on Sunbelt’s crossclaims against Selective. Appellant 

Architectural Glazing Systems, Inc. (Glazing) appeals the district court’s order 

denying its motion for summary judgment against Sunbelt on Sunbelt’s 

crossclaims against Glazing. Glazing also argues that the district court erred in 

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 2 of 11 
3

granting summary judgment in favor of Selective on Sunbelt’s crossclaims against 

Selective. After review,

1 we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Glazing is a glazing contractor formed in 2002 and owned by Tommy 

Sizemore (Sizemore), Rick Langford (Langford), and Jacki Langford.2

 Glazing’s 

business entails installing glass storefronts and windows in commercial and 

residential buildings. Waterproofing is a waterproofing contractor formed in 2007 

by Sizemore and Langford. Waterproofing’s business entails caulking and 

waterproofing work on windows and buildings. Glazing was managed by 

Sizemore and Langford, while Waterproofing was managed by an operations 

manager, Karl Turner, who was not an employee of Glazing. The two companies 

shared office space and Waterproofing paid a fee to use Glazing’s administrative 

staff. Waterproofing also sometimes worked as a subcontractor for Glazing. 

Despite this overlap in ownership and operations, Glazing and Waterproofing 

were insured by different companies. Glazing was insured by Nationwide Mutual 

Insurance Company (Nationwide), while Waterproofing was insured by Selective. 

In 2005, Glazing made credit applications to Sunbelt for the purpose of 

opening a rental account so that it could rent equipment from Sunbelt. The 

 1 We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing all facts and 

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Allison v. McGhan 

Med. Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir.1999)

2 As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we will not recount them in detail. 

We include only those facts necessary to the discussion of each issue.

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 3 of 11 
4

applications resulted in a Credit Agreement that established a rental account for 

Glazing and contained terms governing “all purchases/rentals made by Customer 

from Sunbelt.” The Credit Agreement identified Glazing as the sole “Customer” 

associated with the rental account and listed Sizemore, Langford, and Jacki 

Langford as the “Authorized Renter(s).” By signing the Credit Agreement, 

Glazing agreed that each rental would be subject to the terms and conditions of 

Sunbelt’s Rental Agreement, which terms and conditions were “incorporated into 

and made a part of” the Credit Agreement. Glazing agreed that the terms of the 

Rental Agreement would apply to “each and every rental of equipment and/or 

provision of labor furnished to Lessee, whether or not Lessee executes each such 

rental contract.” The Credit Agreement further provided that terms associated with 

future rentals that were “inconsistent with or in addition to the terms and 

conditions of [the Credit Agreement]” would be “void and have no effect.” 

Sunbelt assigned Glazing rental account number 432746. 

After Waterproofing was formed in 2007, Glazing began to permit 

Waterproofing to use rental account number 432746 to rent equipment that 

Waterproofing needed for its own jobs. Sizemore and Langford authorized Karl 

Turner to order equipment and charge the rental to account number 432746. When 

Sunbelt invoiced Glazing for a rental, Jacki Langford would separate the invoices 

according to whether the equipment had been used by Glazing or Waterproofing. 

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 4 of 11 
5

Invoices for equipment used by Glazing were paid with checks issued on a Glazing 

checking account. Invoices for equipment used by Waterproofing were paid with 

checks issued on a Waterproofing checking account. 

Sunbelt became aware of these practices as early as 2010. Sunbelt was 

aware that two companies associated with Sizemore and Langford were using 

account number 432746. Sunbelt also knew that some of the invoices sent out for 

Glazing were paid by Waterproofing. Yet Sunbelt never rejected a Waterproofing 

payment or requested that Waterproofing open its own rental account. Sunbelt 

continued to list Glazing as the “Customer” on its Rental Agreements, to interface 

with Glazing employees in connection with past-due payments, and to address its 

invoices to Glazing. 

In November 2011, Sunbelt sent a letter to Glazing requesting an updated 

certificate of insurance in connection with account number 432746. The letter was 

addressed to Glazing and did not mention Waterproofing. Glazing responded by 

sending Sunbelt a certificate of insurance stating that Sunbelt was an additional 

insured under Glazing’s policy with Nationwide. The certificate of insurance did 

not mention Waterproofing. Sunbelt did not request a certificate of insurance for 

Waterproofing. 

On November 29, 2011, Karl Turner called Sunbelt and ordered an 80 foot 

boom lift on account number 432746. Sunbelt prepared a Rental Agreement 

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 5 of 11 
6

identifying the “Customer” renting the equipment as “432746” and “Architectural 

Glass Systems.”3

 On November 30, 2011, Sunbelt delivered the boom lift to Old 

Fourth Ward, the jobsite listed on the Rental Agreement, where Waterproofing was 

conducting a job. A Waterproofing employee, Rigoberto Lopez, signed a Rental 

Agreement and accepted delivery of the boom lift. The Rental Agreement listed 

Glazing as the “Customer” and incorporated the terms of the original “Customer 

executed” Credit Agreement. The Rental Agreement contained a clause requiring 

the “Customer” to maintain liability insurance and “name Sunbelt as an additional 

insured” on the insurance policy. It also required the “Customer” to indemnify 

Sunbelt in connection with the boom-lift rental. 

On December 2, 2011, during the course of Waterproofing’s work at the 

Old Fourth Ward site, the boom lift overturned. Karl Turner and Rigoberto Lopez

were killed in the accident. Thereafter, the families of Turner and Lopez filed suit 

against Sunbelt for damages associated with their deaths. Sunbelt added 

Waterproofing and Glazing as third-party defendants, arguing that one or both of 

them have a duty to indemnify Sunbelt under the Rental Agreement. Nationwide 

agreed to defend Glazing in that action subject to a reservation of rights. Selective 

denied coverage and declined to defend Waterproofing.

 3 The parties agree that “Architectural Glass Systems” is a misnomer for Glazing that 

Sunbelt used in paperwork connected with account number 432746.

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 6 of 11 
7

On April 2, 2013, Nationwide filed the present action against Sunbelt, 

Selective, Glazing, and other defendants, requesting relief in connection with the 

various insurance controversies. Sunbelt filed a crossclaim against Selective 

requesting declaratory judgment that: (1) Waterproofing is a party to the Rental 

Agreement; (2) Selective is required to provide coverage to Sunbelt for the boomlift accident because Sunbelt is an “additional insured” under the insurance 

contract between Selective and Waterproofing; and (3) the insurance contract 

between Selective and Waterproofing requires Selective to provide coverage to 

Waterproofing for any and all indemnity obligations that Waterproofing owes 

Sunbelt under the Rental Agreement. Sunbelt also filed a crossclaim against 

Glazing alleging that: (1) Glazing is a party to the Rental Agreement; (2) the 

Rental Agreement requires Glazing to indemnify Sunbelt for any and all 

obligations associated with the boom-lift accident; and (3) Glazing breached the 

Rental Agreement by failing to obtain insurance coverage for Sunbelt in 

connection with the boom-lift rental. 

Selective and Glazing filed motions for summary judgment. The district 

court found that Glazing was a party to the Rental Agreement, that Waterproofing 

was not a party to the Rental Agreement, and that the Rental Agreement requires 

Glazing to indemnify Sunbelt in connection with the boom-lift accident. See 

Jurich v. Compass Marine, Inc., 764 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Summary 

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 7 of 11 
8

judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). The district court 

therefore (1) denied Glazing’s motion for summary judgment against Sunbelt on 

Sunbelt’s crossclaim against Glazing; and (2) granted Selective’s motion for 

summary judgment against Sunbelt on Sunbelt’s crossclaim against Glazing. On 

October 26, 2015, the district court entered final judgment pursuant to a stipulation 

by the parties. Sunbelt and Glazing appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Sunbelt v. Glazing

We first consider Sunbelt’s crossclaim against Glazing. Glazing argues on 

appeal that the district court erred when it held that Turner and Lopez had 

“apparent authority” to rent equipment on Glazing’s account and bind Glazing to 

the Rental Agreement. The district court found that Glazing knowingly permitted 

Waterproofing employees to rent equipment on Glazing’s account, that all parties 

were aware of this practice, and that this course of dealing caused Sunbelt to 

reasonably believe that Turner and Lopez had authority to bind Glazing to Rental 

Agreements in connection with account number 432746. See Dunn v. Venture 

Bldg. Grp., Inc., 642 S.E.2d 156, 159 (Ga. 2007) (“Apparent authority is . . . based 

on acts of the principal which have led [a] third party to believe reasonably the 

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 8 of 11 
9

agent had such authority.”). The district court therefore concluded that Glazing 

was a party to the November 30, 2011, boom-lift Rental Agreement.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court that Glazing 

was a party to the Rental Agreement. The Credit Agreement for account number 

432746 establishes that Glazing was the sole “Customer” associated with account 

number 432746, that each rental on the account was subject to the Credit 

Agreement along with any rental-specific agreements, and that terms and 

conditions “inconsistent with” the Credit Agreement would be “void and have no 

effect.” Thus, by authorizing Waterproofing to use account number 432746, 

Glazing communicated to Sunbelt that Waterproofing had authority to bind 

Glazing in connection with Glazing’s agreed-upon obligations under the Credit 

Agreement. Neither Glazing nor Waterproofing took action to disabuse Sunbelt of 

the belief that Waterproofing had such authority, despite numerous opportunities to 

do so. See Addley v. Beizer, 423 S.E.2d 398, 402 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (“The 

authority of an agent in a particular instance may be established by the principal’s 

conduct and course of dealing . . . .” (emphasis omitted)). In particular, neither 

party asked Sunbelt to address invoices to Waterproofing or list Waterproofing as 

the “Customer” on the Rental Agreements. When Sunbelt requested an updated 

certificate of insurance, Glazing provided a certificate of insurance for Glazing but 

not for Waterproofing. Turner and Lopez never indicated that they worked for 

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 9 of 11 
10

Waterproofing or were renting the boom lift on Waterproofing’s behalf. And 

finally, the boom-lift Rental Agreement Lopez signed listed Glazing as the 

“Customer” and incorporated the terms of the original “Customer executed” Credit 

Agreement. These facts demonstrate that Waterproofing had at least apparent 

authority to bind Glazing to the boom-lift Rental Agreement. See Dunn, 642 

S.E.2d at 159; Addley, 423 S.E.2d at 402. We therefore affirm the denial of

Glazing’s motion for summary judgment against Sunbelt on Sunbelt’s crossclaim 

against Glazing.

B. Sunbelt v. Selective

We next consider Sunbelt’s crossclaim against Selective. Sunbelt argues on 

appeal that (1) Selective has a duty to provide coverage to Sunbelt as an 

“additional insured” under its insurance contract with Waterproofing; and (2) 

Selective has a duty to indemnify Sunbelt because Waterproofing agreed to 

indemnify Sunbelt when Lopez signed the Rental Agreement. The insurance 

contract between Selective and Waterproofing provided that Waterproofing could 

add “additional insured[s]” to the policy by “agree[ing] in a written contract, 

written agreement, or written permit to add [the entity] as an additional insured on 

[the] policy.” The contract further provided that “[t]he provisions of this coverage 

extension do not apply unless the written contract or written agreement has been 

executed.” The contract defines “executed” as “signed by the named insured.” 

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 10 of 11 
11

Sunbelt argues that Waterproofing added Sunbelt as an “additional insured” when 

Lopez—a Waterproofing employee—signed the Rental Agreement promising to 

maintain liability insurance and “name Sunbelt as an additional insured” on the 

insurance policy. As we concluded supra, however, Waterproofing was acting as 

Glazing’s agent when it rented equipment on account number 432746. Because 

Lopez signed the Rental Agreement on behalf of Glazing—not Waterproofing—

his signature is insufficient to add Sunbelt as an additional insured to 

Waterproofing’s insurance policy. We reject the contention that Selective has a 

duty to indemnify Sunbelt on behalf of Waterproofing for similar reasons. The 

Rental Agreement provides that “CUSTOMER INDEMNIFIES . . . SUNBELT.” 

But Glazing—not Waterproofing—is the entity bound by that promise. We 

therefore affirm the order granting summary judgment in favor of Selective on 

Sunbelt’s crossclaims against Selective.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-15322 Date Filed: 09/23/2016 Page: 11 of 11