PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
_______________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
03/12/99
No. 96-8998 THOMAS K. KAHN
_______________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 1:95-CV-1627-CC
CRAIG C. DeHART; JEANNIE I. DeHART, As the parents and Natural
Guardians and Conservators of Adam Shane DeHart,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
______________________________
(March 12, 1999)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
BIRCH, Circuit Judge:
In this action in diversity, Craig C. DeHart and Jeannie I.
DeHart (“the DeHarts”) seek a declaration that a liability insurance
policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty
Mutual”) to Senn Trucking Company of Georgia, Inc. (“Senn
Trucking Company”) was in effect on May 26, 1988; on that date,
a Senn Trucking Company employee caused an automobile
collision to occur that resulted in catastrophic injury to the
DeHarts’ son, Adam Shane DeHart. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the DeHarts and found that Liberty
Mutual was subject to liability under the terms of the applicable
policy. See R2-21 at 4. At the same time, the district court
denied Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment. Id. Liberty
Mutual subsequently appealed the district court’s order entering
judgment in favor of the DeHarts. In reviewing this appeal, we
determined that this case presents unresolved questions of
Georgia law that are dispositive of the claims. Consistent with this
2
determination, we certified the following two questions to the
Supreme Court of Georgia:
1. Does the GPSC regulatory provision
mandating that motor carrier liability
insurance policies properly registered with the
GPSC are continuous until not less than thirty
days after the GPSC receives actual written
notice that such coverage will terminate --
i.e., the continuous coverage provision --
have extra-territorial application such that
coverage is mandated when a motor vehicle
collision occurs outside the state of Georgia?
2. Where an insurer has certified to the
GPSC that it insures a Georgia motor carrier
and, notwithstanding the expiration of the
policy in question, fails to notify the GPSC
that such certification has been canceled
prior to the loss, and the motor carrier
subsequently purchases a second policy also
in effect at the time of the loss, does Georgia
law permit extension of the GPSC continuous
coverage provision to provide “stacking” of
the two policies with respect to the motoring
public?
The Supreme Court of Georgia has answered the first
question as follows:
3
Based on the purpose of the motor carrier act
and PSC regulations, we conclude that the
continuous coverage provision applies to
motor vehicle collisions that occur outside the
state of Georgia. The state motor carrier acts
were enacted to protect members of the
general public against injuries caused by the
negligence of a Georgia motor carrier. The
statutes do not preclude the application of
state law to motor carriers with a Georgia
certificate of public convenience and
necessity for injuries they cause outside
Georgia. The policy in this case covered
accidents that occurred throughout the United
States during the policy period. Given the
purpose of the motor carrier laws and the
nature of interstate travel, we conclude that
the continuous coverage provision applies to
both Georgia and out-of-state residents who
are injured in other states by Georgia motor
carriers.
DeHart v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. S98Q0715, (Ga. Dec. 4,
1998) (footnote omitted).
The Supreme Court of Georgia has answered the second
certified question as follows:
In this case, Liberty Mutual filed a form
certifying that it provided liability insurance for
4
Senn Trucking effective May 27, 1986.1 That
certificate of insurance stated that it could not
be cancelled without giving thirty days notice
of cancellation in writing to the commission.
Although Liberty Mutual cancelled the policy,
it did not file written notice of the cancellation
with the commission. Because the policy
continued until the PSC received proper
written notice of cancellation and Liberty
Mutual did not file a Form K cancelling the
policy with the commission before Adam
DeHart was injured on May 28, 1988, we
conclude that Liberty Mutual is liable to the
DeHarts based on the continuous coverage
provision of the Georgia PSC regulations.
Id. at *4.
Based on the Supreme Court of Georgia’s opinion in this
case, we conclude that the district court properly granted the
DeHart’s motion for summary judgment and entered final
judgment in their favor. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
1
The opinion actually states that the policy became effective in 1996. In light of
the undisputed time frame during which the events relevant to this action occurred,
however, we assume that the Georgia Supreme Court intended to reflect that the policy
became effective in 1986.
5