Opinion ID: 4528125
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Insurance Claim

Text: ABB argues that the district court erred when it granted Georgia Power summary judgment on its Insurance Claim. That claim alleged ABB breached its obligation, under the Contract’s insurance provision, to list Georgia Power “as [an] additional insured[] under” ABB’s liability insurance policies. The Contract’s insurance clause also says ABB’s insurance obligation is “consistent with [ABB’s] indemnification obligations.” ABB argues on appeal that because its insurance obligation was coextensive with its indemnification obligation, the damages Georgia Power seeks under its Insurance Claim are the same as those sought under its Indemnification Claims. According to ABB, Georgia Power is not entitled to summary judgment on its Insurance Claim because it did not show damages “independent” from the those associated with its Indemnification Claims. As an initial matter, ABB did not raise this argument in the district court, and in fact did not respond at all to the part of Georgia Power’s summary judgment motion addressing its Insurance Claim. ABB does not contend that this argument fits into any of the exceptions to our rule prohibiting consideration of arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Blue Martini, 816 F.3d at 1349–50. 15 Case: 19-11148 Date Filed: 04/23/2020 Page: 16 of 16 Therefore, we hold that ABB waived its argument concerning Georgia Power’s Insurance Claim. Even if we were to consider ABB’s argument, we would reject it because it is based on the fallacy that a breach of contract claim must allege damages “independent” from all other claims. While it is true that Georgia law prohibits “double recovery of the same damages for the same wrong,” Marvin Nix Dev. Co. v. United Cmty. Bank, 692 S.E.2d 23, 25 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (quotation marks omitted), parties are allowed to proceed on different theories in pursuit of the same damages, Pope v. Prof’l Funding Corp., 472 S.E.2d 116, 119 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). The cases cited by ABB, such as Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 768 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 2014), do not hold to the contrary. Rather, they stand only for the unremarkable proposition that damages are a required element of any breach of contract claim. Id. at 1130. 4