Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13134
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03483-SCJ
AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THE ABRAM LAW GROUP, LLC,
RICHARD S. ABRAM,
NORTH COAST TITLE, LLC,
CHERYL MEDLEY,
Defendants-Appellants,
BBC PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(February 14, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Appellants the Abram Law Group, Richard S. Abram, North Coast Title,
LLC, and Cheryl Medley appeal the district court’s judgment on the pleadings to
American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (American Guarantee).
The district court concluded that, inter alia, American Guarantee had no duty to
defend the underlying lawsuit against Appellants because the claims in the
underlying lawsuit were either based on or related to acts or omissions occurring
before May 1, 2006. Appellants contend (1) the district court erred in determining
the prior acts exclusion in the parties’ professional liability insurance policy bars
coverage if the claims are causally connected in any way with an act or omission
that took place prior to May 1, 2006; and (2) even accepting the district court’s
interpretation of the policy’s language, the district court erred because the
underlying lawsuit alleged certain acts and omissions that were not “based on” any
acts or omissions that occurred prior to May 1, 2006. After review, 1 we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
American Guarantee’s Amended Complaint sought a declaratory judgment
that the “prior acts exclusion” in its policy barred coverage for an underlying
lawsuit against the Appellants. The prior acts exclusion states: “This policy
1
“We review de novo a district court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings, accepting the
facts in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 (11th Cir. 2002).
2
Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 3 of 7
specifically excludes coverage for Damages and Claim Expenses because of
Claims brought against any Insured based on any act or omission or any Related
Act or Omission that occurred or is alleged to have occurred prior to 5/01/06.”
The underlying lawsuit was brought against Appellants by a real estate
developer, BBC Partners, LLC, and a bank, RM Kids, LLC, over the failed
development of a residential subdivision in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Count One
of the underlying lawsuit alleged malpractice by Appellants in a real estate closing
on January 26, 2006, which involved a $7.35 million loan BBC Partners borrowed
from RM Kids on a short-term basis to purchase a 114-acre tract of land for the
subdivision (the Acquisition Loan). Count Two of the underlying lawsuit alleged
fraud and conspiracy by Appellants in a real estate closing on April 23, 2007,
which was done in order to cover up the alleged malpractice committed on January
26, 2006. As part of the April 2007 closing, BBC Partners borrowed an additional
$2.5 million from RM Kids (the Development Loan) to develop the property
purchased through the Acquisition Loan.
The underlying lawsuit alleges Abram and Medley committed wrongful acts
in both closings. As to the Acquisition Loan closing, it alleges that Abram and
Medley committed malpractice by failing to identify three exceptions to the
property’s title: (1) certain environmental restrictions contained in a prior deed
from Colonial Pipeline; (2) a waterline easement; and (3) a driveway easement.
3
Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 4 of 7
The underlying suit further alleges that BBC Partners discovered the waterline and
driveway easements prior to the Development Loan closing, and that BBC was
seeking coverage for these errors under the title insurance policy Abram issued in
the Acquisition Loan as the agent of Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company (Old Republic).
As to the Development Loan closing, the underlying suit alleges the
Appellants fraudulently schemed to close the Development Loan in such a way as
to eliminate Old Republic’s liability for Abram’s and Medley’s errors in the
Acquisition Loan closing. The lawsuit alleges Abram and Medley sent out
quitclaim deeds to release the Acquisition Loan security deed and terminate Old
Republic’s obligation under the Acquisition Loan title insurance policy. Abram
and Medley also added the water line easement and the driveway easement as
exceptions in the Development Loan closing documents. Further, Abram and
Medley failed to issue the owner’s title insurance policy to BBC Partners. The
lawsuit alleges Abram unethically circumvented BBC Partners’ attorney to cause
BBC Partners to execute a new deed with the additional exceptions. Abram also
failed to advise RM Kids that he had a conflict of interest based on the errors he
committed in the Acquisition Loan.
Old Republic filed a cross-claim against the Abram Law Group. In Count
One, Old Republic contends the Abram Law Group is liable for any judgment
4
Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 5 of 7
entered against Old Republic for the alleged fraud and conspiracy to eliminate its
liability for the Acquisition Loan errors. In Count Two, Old Republic alleges the
Abram Law Group was negligent in failing to identify the original three exceptions
to title.
Abram and Medley tendered the lawsuit and cross-claim to American
Guarantee and requested a defense. American Guarantee agreed to provide a
defense subject to a reservation of rights and brought this declaratory judgment
action.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the prior acts exclusion
bars coverage for any claim connected to the January 26, 2006, Acquisition Loan
closing. The prior acts clause excludes coverage “based on any act or omission or
any Related Act or Omission that occurred or is alleged to have occurred prior to”
May 1, 2006. The policy defines “Related Act or Omission” as “an act or omission
that forms the basis for two or more claims, where a series of continuous, repeated,
interrelated or causally connected acts or omissions give rise to one or more claims
. . . .”
Though Appellants contend Count Two alleging fraud in the underlying
lawsuit relates only to the April 23, 2007, Development Loan closing and thus is
covered under the policy, the acts and omissions giving rise to the malpractice
claim from the January 26, 2006, Acquisition Loan closing also undergird the
5
Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 6 of 7
fraud claim regarding the Development Loan. The alleged negligence involved in
the Acquisition Loan closing is the necessary predicate to the fraudulent scheme to
extinguish the 2006 lender’s title insurance policy and fraudulent insertion of
additional exceptions to the 2007 title insurance policy. Further, the claims that
(1) Abram dealt directly with BBC Partners to ensure the deed to secure debt
containing the additional exceptions was signed, (2) the owner’s title insurance
policy listing the additional exceptions was not issued so the exceptions would not
be discovered, and (3) Abram failed to disclose the conflict of interest, all flow
from Abram’s and Medley’s alleged failure to disclose the restrictions and
easements in the January 26, 2006, closing. The district court did not err in
determining the acts and omissions surrounding the Acquisition Loan closing form
the basis of the claims regarding the fraud alleged during the Development Loan
closing, or in finding the other acts or omissions surrounding the Development
Loan closing were interrelated to or causally connected to the acts or omissions at
the Acquisition closing. Cf. Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Wendt, 205 F.3d 1258, 1262-63
(11th Cir. 2000) (applying plain meaning of the term “related” to a dispute over
insurance coverage).
Additionally, we reject Appellants’ contention that Old Republic’s cross-
claim also does not allege any pre-May 1, 2006, acts. The cross-claim alleges a
fraudulent scheme to eliminate Old Republic’s liability under the Acquisition Loan
6
Case: 13-13134 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 7 of 7
title insurance policy for the errors Abram and Medley committed while closing
the Acquisition Loan. Thus, the acts or omissions surrounding the Acquisition
Loan are also related to this claim.
The district court did not err in concluding the prior acts exclusion applied to
exclude coverage of the claims against Appellants in the underlying lawsuit.
AFFIRMED.
7