Court Opinion

ID: 9880815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 18:00:58.569832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:08.642890
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13581    Document: 70-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13581
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
       MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY,
                        Plaintiﬀs-Counter Defendants-Cross Defendants-
                                                 Appellees-Appellants,
       WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,
                                Intervenor Plaintiﬀ-Appellee-Appellant,
       versus
       BANYAN TREE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
       ALBANY DOWNTOWN HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC,
USCA11 Case: 22-13581     Document: 70-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 2 of 4

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13581

                   Defendants-Counter Claimants-Third-Party Plaintiﬀs-
                                       Counter Defendants-Appellees,

       JANE DOE,

                                   Defendant-Cross Defendant-Appellee,

       STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY,

               Third-Party Defendant-Cross Claimant-Counter Claimant
                                   Cross Claimant-Appellant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                 Appeals from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-05292-MHC
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Four companies (collectively, the appellants) appeal the dis-
       trict court’s order finding they are required to provide insurance
       coverage for an incident at Hampton Inn-Albany, a hotel owned by
       Albany Downtown Hotel Partners, LCC (Albany), and managed
       by Banyan Tree Management, LCC (Banyan). Appellants, the four
USCA11 Case: 22-13581        Document: 70-1        Date Filed: 09/28/2023          Page: 3 of 4

       22-13581                  Opinion of the Court                               3

       insurance companies—Citizens Insurance Company of America
       and Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (collectively, Hano-
       ver), Westfield Insurance Company (Westfield), and Starr Indem-
       nity & Liability Company (Starr)—issued commercial general lia-
       bility insurance to Banyan and Albany.
               In 2015, an employee of Hampton Inn-Albany secretly rec-
       orded a hotel guest while she was showering in the hotel bath-
       room. Years later, the video was circulated, and the guest sued Ban-
       yan and Albany for negligence, premises liability, and vicarious lia-
       bility, alleging she suffered emotional and subsequent physical in-
       jury (Underlying Complaint). Banyan and Albany subsequently
       sought coverage from their insurance providers, who disputed
       their duty to cover this injury, primarily arguing that the Underly-
       ing Complaint did not include allegations of “personal and adver-
       tising injury” arising out of Albany’s “legitimate business,” and that
       their policy exclusions precluded coverage.
               Georgia law requires a liberal construction of coverage and
       strict construction of exclusion. Great Am. All Ins. Co v. Anderson,
       847 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2017). The district court therefore
       rejected Hanover’s, Westfield’s, and Starr’s motions for summary
       judgment.1
             After careful review of the briefs and record, we agree with
       the district court on all counts. Georgia law makes clear that

       1 But the district court found Starr was entitled to summary judgment on

       Count II of its counterclaim and crossclaim. This claim is not on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-13581        Document: 70-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                         Opinion of the Court                22-13581

       ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the insured. Hoover v.
       Maxum Indem. Co., 730 S.E.2d 413, 417 (Ga. 2012); see also World
       Harvest Church v. Guideone Mut. Ins. Co., 695 S.E.2d 6, 10 (Ga. 2010)
       (noting that “if [the policy exclusions] [are] ambiguous, the pur-
       ported reservation of rights must be construed strictly against the
       insurer and liberally in favor of the insured”).
              The appellants failed to even make a showing of ambiguity,
       let alone definitively establish that the Underlying Complaint falls
       outside their policies or that an exclusion precludes coverage. No-
       tably, we find unpersuasive their arguments that the hotel guest’s
       right to privacy was not violated, and that the recording did not
       arise out of Banyan and Albany’s business. While filming a show-
       ering guest is clearly not a “legitimate” hotel practice, when a hotel
       employee—who would not have had access to the room but for his
       authority—places the camera in the bathroom and circulates the
       video, the injury undoubtably imputes to the hotel. Moreover, the
       only policy exclusion argument we find compelling again aligns
       with the district court’s findings: coverage under Coverage A of
       Starr’s policy is excluded, as the Underlying Complaint does not
       include allegations of “bodily injury” required to trigger coverage.
                 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s well-reasoned de-
       cision.
                 AFFIRMED.