Filed: Jul. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-11100 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00018-JRH-BKE PAMELA T. WILLIAMS, f.k.a. Pamela Thomas, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _ (July 17, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Summary: Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-11100 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00018-JRH-BKE PAMELA T. WILLIAMS, f.k.a. Pamela Thomas, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _ (July 17, 2014) Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges. P..
More
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11100
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00018-JRH-BKE
PAMELA T. WILLIAMS,
f.k.a. Pamela Thomas,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 17, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 2 of 7
This case involves a dispute over coverage in a homeowner’s insurance
policy that State Farm issued to Pamela Williams. Williams brought suit against
State Farm alleging violations of state law for breach of contract and for bad faith
penalties under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6. She appeals the district court’s decision
granting State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s (State Farm) motion for
summary judgment. We affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review “a grant of summary judgment by a district court de novo.”
Shuford v. Fid. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007).
In doing so, we “view all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to [Williams,] the nonmoving party.”
Id. But “[s]ummary judgment is
warranted where there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Wright v. Aetna Life
Ins. Co.,
110 F.3d 762, 764 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
BACKGROUND
On August 7, 2012, Williams’s property in Martinez, Georgia, became
flooded with “thigh deep” water runoff from a rainstorm. The storm water on
Williams’s property had accumulated at a culvert located up on a hill behind
Williams’s and a neighbor’s property. When it rains, storm water is supposed to
flow into the culvert and drain away from the residences via a storm drainage
2
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 3 of 7
system that travels under the street.1 However, over time, the drainage system had
become clogged with debris. Consequently, during the storm on August 7, the
storm water overflowed from the culvert and flowed down the hill, onto Williams’s
property and then into her home. 2 Water, mud, and other debris entered
Williams’s home through the doors and crawlspace underneath her house. The
flow of water, mud, and debris continued for about an hour and only began to ebb
once a storm drain manhole cover was removed to allow more rainwater into the
storm drainage system. The water caused extensive damage to Williams’s house
and belongings, and Williams and her family were forced to evacuate the home
during repairs.
As of August 7, 2012, Williams’s home was insured under State Farm’s
homeowner’s insurance policy number 81-NU-1664-1 (the Policy). The Policy
covers certain accidental direct physical losses to the dwelling itself, but excludes
loss “which would not have occurred in the absence of . . . flood [or] surface
water,” regardless of the cause of the flood or surface water and regardless of
whether the negligent conduct of a governmental body, or faulty design,
1
The storm drainage system was maintained by Columbia County, Georgia. A similar
storm event occurred in 2006, and the resulting flooding caused damage to Williams’s property
and home. State Farm denied coverage for the damage under the operative insurance policy at
the time; however, Columbia County compensated Williams for the damage.
2
Since the August 7, 2012 rainstorm, Columbia County has made improvements to the
storm drainage system and removed nearby trees and their root systems.
3
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 4 of 7
construction, or maintenance directly or indirectly caused, contributed to, or
aggravated the loss.
By letter dated August 19, 2012, State Farm denied Williams’s claim under
the Policy. Williams later submitted a demand letter on September 20, 2012,
notifying State Farm of her intent to seek bad faith penalties and attorney’s fees
pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6. State Farm reaffirmed its denial in a letter dated
November 7, 2012. Williams then filed suit in the Superior Court of Columbia
County, raising claims for breach of contract under Georgia law and for bad faith
penalties under O.C.G.A. § 33-4-6. State Farm removed the suit to federal court
and eventually moved for summary judgment. The district court granted State
Farm’s motion on February 21, 2014, concluding that the Policy’s “surface water”
exclusion barred any coverage for damage to Williams’s residence and personal
property. This appeal follows.3
DISCUSSION
3
Williams has also filed a motion to certify two questions to the Georgia Supreme Court
to help define the meaning of “surface water.” State Farm opposes this motion.
Where there is no state precedent directly on point, a federal court considers whether the
state court decisions “provide sufficient and significant guidance” on how the state’s highest
court would rule. Jennings ex rel. Edwards v. BIC Corp., 181 F.3d 1250, 1254–55 (11th Cir.
1999). Georgia courts have adopted the “widely accepted definition” of “surface water” and
applied that definition to insurance policies, without finding the term to be ambiguous. Selective
Way Ins. Co. v. Litig. Tech. Inc.,
606 S.E.2d 68, 70–71 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (internal quotation
marks omitted); see Hirschfield v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,
405 S.E.2d 737, 738 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991);
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Walker,
105 S.E.2d 917, 920 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958). As is reflected herein,
Georgia law provides ample guidance on the issue, and Williams’s motion is DENIED.
4
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 5 of 7
On appeal, Williams argues that the overflowed water from the storm drain
lost its character as “surface water” when it entered her swimming pool, mixed
with the water in the pool, and then left the pool and entered her home. Under
Georgia law, once this water was concentrated in one area and left that area, it lost
its classification of “surface water.” State Farm argues that this swimming-pool
theory was never argued before the district court or briefed by the parties, and that
therefore we should not consider it on appeal. We agree that this theory of
recovery was not considered by the district court and accordingly, we will not
consider it on appeal. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324,
1326–27 (11th Cir. 2004). In the district court, Williams argued that the water lost
its characterization as “surface water” when it entered a man-made storm water
diversion system. That is the theory that was briefed by the parties and what the
district court considered when it granted State Farm’s motion for summary
judgment.
We conclude that the Policy’s “surface water” exclusion operates to bar
coverage for both damage to Williams’s residence and damage to Williams’s
personal property. Contrary to Williams’s argument, Georgia law is clear on the
definition of “surface water”:
[W]ater which is derived from falling rain or melting snow, or which
rises to the surface in springs, and is diffused over the surface of the
ground, while it remains in such diffused state, and which follows no
defined course or channel, which does not gather into or form a
5
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 6 of 7
natural body of water, and which is lost by evaporation, percolation,
or natural drainage.
Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Litig. Tech. Inc., 606 S.E.2d 68, 70–71 (Ga. Ct. App.
2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). State Farm cites to Hirschfield, which is
instructive. There, rainwater “flowed or rose” from a grate-covered, underground
storm drain located near the plaintiffs’ home, moved “across the surface,
and . . . entered a vent leading into the plaintiffs’ basement.” Hirschfield v. Cont’l
Cas. Co.,
405 S.E.2d 737, 738 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). There was also evidence that
“a blockage in the underground drain caused rainwater, which had previously
entered the drain at an upstream location, to be diverted upward through the grate
and eventually across the surface area into the basement.”
Id. In affirming
summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that
“the ‘surface water’ exclusion clearly and explicitly excludes coverage under the
present circumstances.”
Id. at 739.
Like Hirschfield, debris and tree roots prevented the rainwater from properly
flowing through the drainage system near Williams’s home. Instead of flowing
into the culvert and the drainage system, the storm water overflowed from the
culvert, moved across the surface of certain properties, and flowed into Williams’s
home and crawlspace. Also like Hirschfield, even though the water was intended
to drain via a storm system, it still maintained its character as “surface water” at
the time the water entered Williams’s home and crawlspace.
6
Case: 14-11100 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 7 of 7
The storm water entered Williams’s home on the surface of the ground. The
storm water flowed in a diffused state down a hill from the culvert and across
Williams’s and a neighbor’s yard. Williams has failed to show that there is a
genuine issue of fact about whether the storm water flowing into her residence was
“surface water” as defined under the Policy. The district court is affirmed. 4
AFFIRMED.
4
Because we affirm the district court’s finding that Williams failed to demonstrate that
her claim was covered by the Policy, Williams’s argument that State Farm refused to honor her
claim under the Policy is moot.
7
