Ricardo White v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Eleventh Circuit

Ricardo White v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

694 F.3d 1199, 2012 WL 3929938, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19079

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ricardo White v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Read the opinion of the Court — 664 F.3d 860 →

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided September 11, 2012·No. 10-14028·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case involves a dispute about the enforceability — under Georgia law — of an insurance policy’s requirement that lawsuits against the insurance company be brought “within one year of the date of loss or damage.” The case returns to us after we certified these two questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: (1) “Did the Georgia Insurance Commissioner act within his legal authority when he promulgated Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-20-.02, such that a multiple-line insurance policy providing first-party insurance coverage for theft-related property damage must be reformed to conform with the two-year limitation period provided for in Georgia’s Standard Fire Policy, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-19-.01?” and (2) “Is this action barred by the Policy’s one-year limitation period?” White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 664 F.3d 860, 865 (11th Cir. 2011). 1

The Supreme Court of Georgia advises us that the answer is “no” to the first question, and “yes” to the second question. White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 291 Ga. 306, 728 S.E.2d 685 (2012). In the light of these definite responses, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The facts are set out in our initial opinion. See White, 664 F.3d at 862-63.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This case involves a dispute about the enforceability — under Georgia law — of an insurance policy’s requirement that lawsuits against the insurance company be brought “within one year of the date of loss or damage.” The case returns to us after we certified these two questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: (1) “Did the Georgia Insurance Commissioner act within his legal authority when he promulgated Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-20-.02, such that a multiple-line insurance policy providing first-party insurance coverage for theft-related property damage must be reformed to conform with the two-year limitation period provided for in Georgia’s Standard Fire Policy, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 120-2-19-.01?” and (2) “Is this action barred by the Policy’s one-year limitation period?” White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 664 F.3d 860, 865 (11th Cir. 2011). 1

The Supreme Court of Georgia advises us that the answer is “no” to the first question, and “yes” to the second question. White v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 291 Ga. 306, 728 S.E.2d 685 (2012). In the light of these definite responses, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The facts are set out in our initial opinion. See White, 664 F.3d at 862-63.

Ricardo White v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 694 F.3d 1199, 2012 WL 3929938, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19079 (11th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

694 F.3d 1199 (Ricardo White v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related