York Ins. Co. v. Williams Seafood of Alba, 223 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
York Ins. Co. v. Williams Seafood of Alba, 223 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Great West Casualty Co. v. Flandrich (ohsd, 2009-03-31)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Great West Casualty Co. v. Flandrich
S.D. Ohio · 2009 · confidence medium
Co. v. Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., 223 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir.2000) (if “an insurance policy is confusing to a layman, the policy is ambiguous”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York Insurance Company v. Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., Webb Properties, Inc., and Oxford Construction Company, Inc.
11th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
We therefore certified to the Georgia Supreme Court the following question: ‘Where the ‘exclusions’ section of an insurance policy excludes coverage for damage resulting directly or indirectly from floods, but 'the ‘additional coverage— collapse’ section specifically includes sinkhole collapse damage, does the policy cover damage produced by a sinkhole collapse that was precipitated by a flood?” York, 223 F.3d at 1256.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York Insurance Company v. Williams Seafood of Alba
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
We therefore certified to the Georgia Supreme Court the following question: "Where the 'exclusions' section of an insurance policy excludes coverage for damage resulting directly or indirectly from floods, but the 'additional coverage—collapse' section specifically includes sinkhole collapse damage, does the policy cover damage produced by a sinkhole collapse that was precipitated by a flood?" York, 223 F.3d at 1256. * Honorable Betty B.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York Insurance Company v. Williams Seafood of Alba
11th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
We therefore certified to the Georgia Supreme Court the following question: “Where the ‘exclusions’ section of an insurance policy excludes coverage for damage resulting directly or 2 indirectly from floods, but the ‘additional coverage - collapse’ section specifically includes sinkhole collapse damage, does the policy cover damage produced by a sinkhole collapse that was precipitated by a flood?” York, 223 F.3d at 1256.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
York Insurance Company
v.
Williams Seafood of Alba
99-14419.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 18, 2000.
223 F.3d 1253
Published
YORK INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
WILLIAMS SEAFOOD OF ALBANY, INC., Webb Properties, Inc., and Oxford Construction Company, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 99-14419.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

April 6, 2001.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. (No. 95-00114-CV-WLS-1- 2), W. Louis Sands, Judge. Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and FLETCHER*, Circuit Judges.

WILSON, Circuit Judge:

We now revisit this case upon its return to us from the Georgia Supreme Court, to which we certified a question of Georgia state law. See York Ins. Co. v. Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., 223 F.3d 1253 (11th

Cir.2000). The facts, briefly, are that York Insurance Company ("York") issued a policy of insurance to Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., Webb Properties, Inc., and Oxford Construction Company, Inc.

("Williams") covering Williams's restaurant. Following a flood, the restaurant collapsed into a sinkhole,

suffering a total loss. Williams then filed a claim with York, asking York to cover the loss. York denied Williams's claim because its investigation revealed that the loss was caused directly or indirectly by the flood, which was an excluded precipitating event. York next sought from the district court a declaratory judgment

that the loss was not covered. After a bench trial, the district court granted York a declaratory judgment absolving York of all liability for Williams's collapsed building loss. Williams appealed to this Court.

After hearing oral argument in the case, we determined that the pivotal issue turned on an unresolved question of Georgia law. We therefore certified to the Georgia Supreme Court the following question:

"Where the 'exclusions' section of an insurance policy excludes coverage for damage resulting directly or indirectly from floods, but the 'additional coverage—collapse' section specifically includes sinkhole collapse damage, does the policy cover damage produced by a sinkhole collapse that was precipitated by a flood?"

York, 223 F.3d at 1256.

* Honorable Betty B. Fletcher, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

The Georgia Supreme Court has answered our certified question; the Court responded, "we answer the question in the affirmative and hold that the policy covers damage produced by a sinkhole collapse that was precipitated by a flood." York Ins. Co. v. Williams Seafood of Albany, Inc., Ga., 2001, --- S.E.2d ---- (No.

S00Q23003, March 19, 2001). Thus, under Georgia law, York's insurance policy covered Williams's loss.

It follows that the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to York absolving York of liability for Williams's loss was in error. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment, and REMAND for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.