Opinion ID: 3042806
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sua sponte ruling

Text: Cason contends that the district court erred by ruling sua sponte on issues neither party raised, particularly justifiable reliance. After a review of the record, 1 Cason also asserts that Progressive received notice soon after the accident when Hunley notified Nelson, the independent insurance agency that wrote the Progressive and Everest Security policies. Regardless of whether Hunley’s alleged notice can be imputed to Progressive, there is no evidence that Hunley did notify Nelson insurance agency of Anderson’s accident. Anderson averred in his deposition that he thought Hunley notified the insurance agency, but there is no testimony from Hunley that he did so. This speculation is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. 8 Case: 15-10977 Date Filed: 09/15/2015 Page: 9 of 10 we disagree with Cason. In order for the district court to analyze the merits of Cason’s contention regarding whether Progressive received notice of the accident via Hunley’s alleged notification to Nelson, the district court had to delve into the issue of justifiable reliance. As such, Progressive briefed the issue to the district court. Moreover, there is no requirement under Georgia law that an insurer must show that it was prejudiced by an insured’s failure to give timely notices. See Se. Exp. Sys., Inc., 482 S.E.2d at 436 (reiterating that no showing of prejudice is required to establish a late notice defense).2