Opinion ID: 3064039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hall’s Alleged Good Faith

Text: The district court granted summary judgment on the grounds that Hall failed to comply with conditions precedent to suit. The contract required Hall to provide Liberty with “records and documents we request and permit us to make copies” prior to initiating a lawsuit. Hall acknowledges that this was an express condition precedent to suit, but argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because Hall made a good faith effort to provide the requested information. Under Georgia law,2 an insurer may require its insured to abide by the terms of his policy and cooperate with the insurer’s investigation, as a precondition to this circuit” that issues not raised in the parties’ initial briefs on appeal are waived). 2 In actions where jurisdiction is founded upon diversity of citizenship, state substantive law applies. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Whitaker Contracting Corp., 242 F.3d 1035, 1040 (11th Cir. 2001). 5 recovery. KHD Deutz of Am. Corp. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., Inc., 469 S.E.2d 336, 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). “A total failure to comply with policy provisions made a prerequisite to suit under the policy may constitute a breach precluding recovery from the insurer as a matter of law. If, however, the insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented for resolution by a jury.” Diamonds & Denims, Inc. v. First of Ga. Ins. Co., 417 S.E.2d 440, 441-42 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (citations omitted). Where documents are unavailable, the insured has a duty to “cooperate with the insurer to obtain or reconstruct the information needed from other available sources.” Id. at 442. The Georgia Supreme Court has held that an insured’s failure “to provide any material information called for under . . . the policy” constitutes a breach of contract. Halcome v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 334 S.E.2d 155, 157 (Ga. 1985) (emphasis in original). Hall does not challenge the district court’s finding that he “submitted no records prior to the commencement of this lawsuit.”3 Nonetheless, Hall argues that there is an issue of fact as to whether he made a good faith effort to supply Liberty 3 It was only after the commencement of suit that Hall began providing the requested documents. The express terms of the policy, however, required production of requested documents prior to suit. 6 with the requested documents.4 Hall relies on Diamonds & Denims for the proposition that where an insured “cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance,” summary judgment in favor of the insurer is inappropriate. 417 S.E.2d at 442. Hall argues that he cooperated “at least to some degree” by informing Liberty that some of the documents it requested were burned in the fire or otherwise unavailable. In Diamonds & Denims, the insurance company did not specify which documents it wanted the insured to turn over, but rather only made vague, broad requests for “books and records.” Id. The insured explained that all of its documents were destroyed in the fire, but during the course of depositions the insured’s employees offered to provide alternative documentation. The insurance company, however, did not thereafter attempt to procure those documents. In light of the evidence of the insured’s good faith, the court held that summary judgment in favor of the insurer was inappropriate. In the present case, by contrast, despite Liberty’s repeated requests for 4 Hall also argues that his failure to complete a proof of loss form prior to suit, as required under the policy, should also be excused because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Liberty waived its right to demand a proof of loss. We recognize that contractual prerequisites to suit, including clauses requiring the filing of a proof of loss form, may be expressly or implicitly waived. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wright, 224 S.E.2d 796, 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the proof of loss requirement was waived by the statements of Liberty’s employee, Arthur. This does not affect the disposition of this case, however, because, as discussed infra, Hall failed to comply with other contractual prerequisites to suit. 7 specific documents, Hall failed to bring any documents to the July 15 meeting, not just those that he previously claimed were destroyed or unavailable. Given that Hall did not inform Liberty that all of the requested documents were unavailable prior to the meeting and did not attempt to provide alternative means of acquiring the information contained in those documents, we conclude that Diamonds & Denims does not control the outcome of this case. We agree with the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hall made a good faith effort to comply with the conditions precedent to suit.5