SCI Liquidating v. Hartford Fire

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 20 2000
No. 98-9069
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 97-00124-4-HLM
SCI LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, f.k.a.
Sunrise Carpet Industries, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellee.
versus
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Connecticut Corporation, HARTFORD
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Connecticut Corporation,
Defendants-Appellants,
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 20, 2000)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The facts in this case are set out in our prior opinion, in which we certified the
following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia on a controlling issue of law:
DOES SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR RETALIATION BY A
SUPERVISOR TRIGGER EXCLUSION SIXTEEN ON PAGE THREE
OF THE UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICY IN THIS CASE,
WHERE THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDES: “COVERAGE
AFFORDED ANY OF [THE INSURED’S] EMPLOYEES TO
‘BODILY INJURY’ OR ‘PERSONAL INJURY’ . . . TO OTHER
EMPLOYEES ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT”?
SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 181 F.3d 1210, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999).
The Supreme Court of Georgia responded, “we find that exclusion sixteen of the
umbrella policy does not exclude coverage for Sunrise’s claims originating from the
sexual harassment suit.” SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 526 S.E.2d 555,
556 (Ga. 2000). In light of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s response, we find that the
district court correctly concluded that Plaintiff-Appellee SCI Liquidating Corporation
(“SCI”) was covered under the umbrella policy’s “personal injury” provisions.
The district court found that SCI was covered under both the umbrella policy’s
“personal injury” provisions and the commercial general liability policy’s “bodily
injury” provisions. We reaffirm our prior holding that the district court erred in
finding coverage under the commercial general liability policy. See SCI Liquidating
2
Corp., 181 F.3d at 1217. Thus, we reverse the judgment for SCI against Defendant-
Appellant Hartford Fire Insurance Company.
Because we conclude that SCI was covered under the umbrella policy and
because the amount of damages is not in dispute, we affirm the judgment for SCI
against Defendant-Appellant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company in the amount of
$ 187,972.21, plus prejudgment interest, and $3,384 in costs.
REVERSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.
3