Foundation Contractors, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.a, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: February 17, 2021
• Docket: A20A1771
• Status: Published

Opinion

FIFTH DIVISION REESE, P. J., MARKLE and COLVIN, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. https://www.gaappeals.us/rules

DEADLINES ARE NO LONGER TOLLED IN THIS COURT. ALL FILINGS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN THE TIMES SET BY OUR COURT RULES.

February 17, 2021

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A20A1771. FOUNDATION CONTRACTORS, INC v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.

COLVIN, Judge.

We granted defendant Foundation Contractors, Inc. (“Foundation”)’s

application for interlocutory review of the trial court’s order granting plaintiff Home

Depot, U. S. A.’s motion for sanctions, striking Foundation’s pleadings, and finding

Foundation to be in default as a result of a discovery violation. On appeal, Foundation

argues that the trial court erred by finding that Foundation wilfully failed to disclose

the existence of an additional umbrella policy in written discovery responses. For the

reasons discussed below, we reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion for

sanctions. The record shows that in January 2016, part of a retaining wall at a Home

Depot store collapsed. Shortly thereafter, Home Depot filed suit against the

contractor, Sun Construction Group, Inc., for breach of contract as well as against the

subcontractors for breach of contract and negligent construction. One of these

subcontractors was Foundation, who had installed the retaining wall. At the time the

suit was filed, Foundation was no longer in business and its insurer, National Trust,

a wholly-owned subsidiary of FCCI Insurance Company, retained counsel to

represent it.

Foundation had three relevant insurance policies: a $1 million commercial

general liability policy in effect from October 1, 2009, through October 1, 2010; a $1

million commercial general liability policy in effect from October 1, 2010, through

October 1, 2011; and a $ 5 million umbrella policy in effect from October 1, 2009,

through October 1, 2010 (the “Umbrella Policy”). In April 2016, after Home Depot

filed suit, these three policies were added to the insurer’s claims file.

Home Depot served requests for production on Foundation, seeking all

insurance policies. See OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (2) (“A party may obtain discovery of

the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which any person

carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment

2 which may be entered[.]”). Allison Escott, Foundation’s counsel, contacted FCCI’s

adjustor, Alan Sienkiewicz, to request information about all applicable policies

owned by Foundation. Sienkiewicz identified both of the general liability policies, but

failed to identify the Umbrella Policy. Accordingly, in June 2016, Foundation only

disclosed the two general liability policies in its initial responses to Home Depot’s

request for production. Thereafter, Foundation supplemented its response to the

requests for production and again disclosed only the two general liability policies and

policies with another insurer. The supplemental response did not disclose the

Umbrella Policy.

Foundation answered and raised affirmative defenses to Home Depot’s

complaint, and later obtained summary judgment on Home Depot’s negligent

construction claim on statute of limitation grounds. Home Depot eventually settled

or dismissed its claims against all defendants except Foundation. As part of its

settlement with Sun Contruction Group, Home Depot obtained an assignment of

claims that Sun Contractors and its insurers had against Foundation.

In late 2016, Sienkiewicz retired from FCCI. Between December 2016 and

November 2017, the case was assigned to other FCCI adjusters. Eventually, in

November 2017, Derrick Harris, a claims adjuster for FCCI, took over the case. He

3 was aware of the umbrella policy, but he did not know that it had not been disclosed.

On January 2, 2019, while attending a site inspection with Foundation’s counsel,

Harris mentioned the umbrella policy, to which Foundation’s counsel expressed

surprise. The following day, Harris confirmed that there was a $5 million Umbrella

Policy and sent the declarations page to counsel. On January 4, 2019, Foundation’s

counsel informed Home Depot of the umbrella policy and supplemented its discovery

response to include the umbrella policy.1

Around this time, in response to Home Depot’s request for an explanation as

to why the Umbrella Policy was not disclosed earlier, Foundation’s counsel stated

that he could not speak to Foundation’s efforts in 2016, as the company was no longer

in business and he did not have any of its records. As to the actions of the insurer,

counsel explained that the adjustor had only provided the two primary policies to

defense counsel. Counsel could not explain why the umbrella policy was not

1 In the meantime, in August 2018, FCCI and National Trust filed a separate declaratory judgment action in Fulton County Superior Court against Home Depot and various defendants, seeking a declaratory judgment that the general commercial liability policies it issued to Foundation did not cover the claims at issue in the instant action in Cobb County Superior Court. Foundation is not a party to that action. In the Fulton County litigation, the umbrella policy was disclosed. As part of that action, Home Depot sought to depose Sienkiewicz, and the plaintiff insurers filed a motion to stay and a motion to quash the deposition, which was denied. Sinkowicz’s deposition testimony is not part of the appellate record in the instant case.

4 disclosed, and the firm’s records contained no reference to the umbrella policy prior

to January 3, 2019.

In March 2019, Home Depot moved for sanctions against Foundation on the

basis that it had “intentionally misrepresent[ed] for more than 2 ½ years (through two

mediations and settlements with other parties) the amount of insurance[.]” In

response, Foundation denied that the failure to disclose was intentional and filed

affidavits from Harris and its former and current counsel in support of its explanation.

Foundation also argued that there was no prejudice because Home Depot never

demanded that Foundation pay in excess of the $1 million policy limits and

Foundation never offered more than a fraction of the $1 million policy limits.

After a hearing, the trial court ruled that Foundation had wilfully served false

discovery responses which failed to disclose the existence of the umbrella policy. The

trial court then granted Home Depot’s motion for sanctions, struck Foundation’s

answer, and declared Foundation to be in default. This Court granted Foundation’s

application for interlocutory review from that order.

A trial court “has broad discretion in the enforcement of the discovery

provisions of the Civil Practice Act, and we will not interfere with the exercise of that

discretion absent clear abuse.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Cameron v. Miles,

5 311 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) (716 SE2d 831) (2011). Accord Resurgens, P. C. v. Elliott,

301 Ga. 589, 597 (2) (b) (800 SE2d 580 ) (2017). This is because, unlike the appellate

courts, the trial court has “directly supervised the ebb and flow of the discovery and

trial process in the case and had the opportunity to observe and assess the conduct,

demeanor, and credibility of the parties and their counsel throughout the

proceedings.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Resurgens, P. C., 301 Ga. at 598

(2) (b).

1. Foundation argues that the trial court erred by declaring it to be in default

in the absence of any evidence of wilfulness. We agree.

When a party has failed to respond to a document production request or an

interrogatory, OCGA § 9-11-37 (d) (1) authorizes a trial court to “make such orders

in regard to the failure as are just.” Similarly, “an intentionally false response to a

written discovery request, particularly when it concerns a pivotal issue in the

litigation, equates to a total failure to respond, triggering OCGA § 9-11-37 (d)

sanctions.” Resurgens, 301 Ga. at 595-596 (2) (a).2 The trial court may sanction the

2 A discovery response “that falsely denies the existence of discoverable information is not exactly equivalent to no response. It is worse than no response. When there is no response to an interrogatory or the response is devoid of content, the party serving the interrogatory at least knows that it has not received an answer. It can move the court for an order to compel a response. If the response is false,

6 offending party by, inter alia, striking out pleadings or rendering a judgment by

default. See OCGA § 9-11-37 (b) (2) (C). See Resurgens, 596-597 (2) (a) (“[W]here

a party has provided false or intentionally misleading responses to written discovery

. . . the aggrieved party may seek sanctions for the same”).

However, a trial court’s discretion as to sanctions is not unlimited, especially

when asked to impose drastic sanctions. North Druid Dev., LLC v. Post, Buckley,

Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., 330 Ga. App. 432, 435 (1) (767 SE2d 29) (2014).

“[D]ismissal and default are the harshest sanctions available for the trial court to

impose, and we have cautioned against the use of these harsher sanctions except in

extreme cases.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Cameron, 311 Ga. App. at 754

(1). “Moreover, before a trial court may enter the sanction of dismissal it must find

that the offending party has acted wilfully[.]” (Citation omitted.) North Druid Dev.,

330 Ga. App. at 435 (1). “This is distinguished from an accidental or involuntary non-

compliance. A conscious or intentional failure to act is in fact wilful.” (Citation and

punctuation omitted.) General Motors Corp. v. Conkle, 226 Ga. App. 34, 38 (1) (486

SE2d 180) (1997). See also City of Griffin v. Jackson, 239 Ga. App. 374, 377 (1) (520

however, the party serving the interrogatory may never learn that it has not really received the answer[.]” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Resurgens, 301 Ga. at 596 (2) (a).

7 SE2d 510) (1999) (distinguishing between “an accidental or involuntary non-

compliance” and a “conscious or intentional failure to act” that is willful). “In

determining whether a party has abused discovery, the trial court sits as trier of fact,

and this Court will uphold a finding of wilful discovery abuse if there is any evidence

to support it.” (Citation omitted.) City of Griffin, 239 Ga. App. at 377 (1).

Here, the trial court held a hearing to address Home Depot’s motion for

sanctions. Although the parties did not present witness testimony or other evidence

at the hearing, they did reference affidavits and other evidence that was attached to

their briefs regarding this motion. That evidence shows that, in April 2016, all three

insurance policies were added to FCCI’s insurer’s claims file. Allison Escott,

Foundation’s attorney at the time the initial discovery responses were submitted,

averred that she sent an email to Sienkiewicz, the adjustor for FCCI Insurance

Company assigned to this case requesting information about all insurance policies

applicable to Foundation. Escott averred that Sienkiewicz responded by providing her

with information regarding the two $1 million commercial general liability policies,

but he did not disclose the existence of the Umbrella Policy. Sienkiewicz retired from

his job at FCCI soon after. Escott averred that, during her time working on the case,

she was never made aware of the existence of the Umbrella Policy.

8 Edward Bresee, Jr., took over representation for Foundation after Escott left the

firm. Bresee explained that he first learned of the existence of the Umbrella Policy

while on a site visit with Derrick Harris, the adjuster who was assigned to the claim

in November 2016, after Sienkiewicz’s retirement. Harris averred that he knew about

the existence of the Umbrella Policy, but did not realize it had not been disclosed

until January 2019, when Bresee expressed surprise upon learning of same. Harris

averred that he never concealed the Umbrella Policy and the claim file did not

indicate that the failure to disclose was the result of anything other than a

miscommunication or oversight. Upon learning of the Umbrella Policy, Bresee

immediately contacted Home Depot’s counsel and filed amended discovery

responses.

Home Depot argues that the failure to disclose the Umbrella Policy in the initial

discovery responses was willful because the policies were in the adjustor’s files and

Foundation “could and should have discovered all of the available policies at the

outset of the litigation.” In support of its argument, Home Depot cites to the

deposition testimony of Derrick Harris, FCCI’s adjuster, for the proposition that the

Umbrella Policy was in the claims file from the beginning of the litigation. However,

there is no evidence in the record that Foundation or its counsel in this case knew

9 about the Umbrella Policy at the time the discovery responses were completed or that

Sienkowitz knowingly or wilfully withheld information regarding the Umbrella

Policy when responding to Foundation’s request for information. In fact, the evidence

shows that as soon as Foundation’s counsel learned of the existence of the Umbrella

Policy, they immediately notified Home Depot and amended the discovery responses.

The fact that the Umbrella Policy could have been discovered earlier – without more

– is sufficient to show only “accidental or involuntary non-compliance,” but not

wilfulness.3 (Citation omitted.) City of Griffin, 239 Ga. App. at 377 (1). See Motani

v. Wallace, 251 Ga. App. 384, 386 (1) (554 SE2d 439) (2001) (holding that trial

court’s striking of defendants’ answer was too severe when defendants’ counsel

presented evidence that the failure to comply with a discovery order was accidental

and not intentional and there was no evidence that the failure was wilful, in bad faith,

or in conscious disregard of the consequences). Compare Resurgens, 301 Ga. 597-598

3 Home Depot also claims that there is further evidence that Foundation acted wilfully because it did not include the Umbrella Policy in the Fulton County declaratory judgment action and refused to investigate the matter as part of the declaratory judgment action. But Harris deposed that the Umbrella Policy was not included in the declaratory judgment action because coverage would only apply if the underlying liability polices applied. Moreover, Foundation is not a party to the Fulton County action; only the insurers and Home Depot are named parties, and Foundation’s counsel in the instant case did not participate in that litigation.

10 (2) (b) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding witness that was

deliberately not identified in prior written discovery responses); MARTA v. Doe, 292

Ga. App. 532, 536-537 (1) (664 SE2d 893) (2008) (trial court did not abuse its

discretion in striking MARTA’s answer when there was evidence that MARTA

provided intentionally false response to discovery requests).

Because the record does not support a finding that Foundation acted wilfully

or with a conscious or intentional failure to discover the existence of the Umbrella

Policy, “we conclude that the sanction chosen by the court was too severe for the

facts presented.” (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Motani, 251 Ga. App. at 386

(1). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting Home Depot’s motion for

sanctions and striking Foundation’s answer.

2. As a result of our holding in Division 1, we need not address Foundation’s

remaining enumerations of error.

Judgment reversed. Reese, P. J., and Markle, J., concur.