[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-10198 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 1, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 02-02929-CV-JTC-1
BORAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 1, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Boral Industries, Inc. (“Boral”) appeals the district court’s entry of summary
judgment in favor of Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”), in Boral’s
action to obtain a declaration that its commercial general liability policy with
Continental did not provide coverage for the underlying indemnity claim and,
therefore, Continental had acted in bad faith by settling the claim for less than the
policy deductible and then seeking to recover the total amount of the settlement from
Boral. In a counterclaim, Continental sought recovery, under the policy deductible,
of the $300,000 settlement payment. After the completion of discovery, the parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court, interpreting the “right
to settle” provision in Boral’s Continental policy, concluded that the provision, which
was unqualified, permitted the settlement of the underlying claim and that Continental
was entitled to full reimbursement since the deductible exceeded the settlement
amount. Accordingly, it granted Continental’s motion for summary judgment on both
Boral’s claims and Continental’s counter-claim. After thorough review of the record
and careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
We review the district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo. See
Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 208 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2000). A
motion for summary judgment should be granted when “the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). “Where the
record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-
2
moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538
(1986) (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289,
88 S. Ct. 1575, 1592, 20 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1968)).
Interpreting the “right to settle” and deductible provisions in the Continental
policy and applying Georgia law, the district court held that Boral, as a sophisticated
corporate entity, had the opportunity to bargain for insurance without a provision that
granted the insurer an “unfettered right to settle claims.” Thus, the court concluded,
Boral, having contractually afforded the right to settle a claim like the underlying
indemnity action here, was obligated to reimburse Continental for the settlement so
long as Continental did not act with bad faith. On the record before it, the district
court found no evidence of bad faith on Continental’s part. Moreover, the district
court determined that there was no genuine issue of fact that Continental had acted
reasonably and in compliance with the unambiguous terms of the policy in (1) settling
the underlying claim and (2) seeking reimbursement from Boral for in an amount that
was less than the deductible. Based on our review of the unambiguous policy
provisions at issue in this appeal and the applicable Georgia law interpreting such
unequivocal provisions in the same manner, we too conclude that Continental was
entitled to summary judgment.
3
The district court also denied Boral’s motion to compel discovery and motion
for sanctions based on Continental’s alleged failure to provide the requested
discovery in a timely manner. These motions concerned Boral’s request for
production of correspondence between Continental and its “outside counsel.”
Continental claimed that the requested items were protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege. After conducting an in camera inspection of the
correspondence, the district court first noted that the requests to produce were
untimely since discovery had closed four months before Continental’s request.
Moreover, the court found that the items, which were marked “attorney-client
privileged,” contained information that was “largely redundant of other
correspondence and evidence produced in discovery and presently in the record.” We
can find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision on this issue. See
Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 506 (11th Cir. 1996) (reviewing district court
rulings on discovery motions and discovery sanctions under abuse of discretion
standard).
AFFIRMED.
4