DOC PREVIEW
UNCW BLA 361 - Park N Go v. Fidelity

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 6 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 94-8989. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARK 'N GO OF GA., INC., Defendant-Appellant. Oct. 10, 1995. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (No. 1:93-cv-1541-JEC), Julie E. Carnes, Judge. Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON[*], Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: Park "N Go appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of United States Fidelity & Guaranty in this declaratory judgment action. Because resolution of this case involves questions of Georgia law which are dispositive but unanswered by the precedent of the Supreme Court of Georgia, we defer our decision in this case pending certification of the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia pursuant to GA. CONST. art. VI, § 6, para. 4, O.C.G.A. § 15-2-9, and Rule 37 of the Supreme Court of Georgia. See Polston v. Boomershine Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc., 952 F.2d 1304 (11th Cir.1992). We submit the following facts and analysis for consideration by the Supreme Court of Georgia. CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VI SECTION VI PARAGRAPH IV OF THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF. STYLE OF THE CASE The case is styled this way: Park "N Go of Georgia, Inc., Appellant, versus United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Appellee, Case No. 94-8989, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, on appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. FACTS Park "N Go of Georgia, Inc., is a Georgia corporation that operates a parking/shuttle service near Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. The parking facility consists of a 13-acre parking lot surrounded by a fence six or seven feet high. An office building and entrance and exit gates are located at the front of the lot. Park "N Go operates with a limited staff and without a security system or security personnel. To enter the parking facility, a customer drives his vehicle up to a ticket machine located at the entrance gate and takes a bar- coded ticket stamped with the date and time of entry. The customer then drives into the parking lot, findsa parking space, parks and locks his vehicle, and takes the keys with him. An airport shuttle takes the customer to the appropriate airport terminal. No other way exists for a customer lawfully to enter the Park "N Go lot.Upon returning, a Park "N Go shuttle transports the customer from the terminal to the place where his vehicle is parked. To leave the parking facility, the customer drives his vehicle up to a cashier's window located next to the exitlane, presents the bar- coded ticket, and pays the amount calculated by a fee computer. This contact is normally the only interaction a customer has with a Park "N Go employee. The customer then exits the facility. No other way exists for a customer lawfully to leave the Park "N Go lot. In 1991, Park "N Go contracted with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. ("USF & G") to insure Park "N Go's business. USF & G issued Policy No. 1MP1334231140 effective until November 1992. The policy included several kinds of coverage. Portions of the policy at issue in this case include: (1) the Garage Coverage Part–Liability Coverage with a liability limit of $1 million, (2) the Garage Coverage Part–Garage Keepers Coverage with a liability limit of $250,000, and (3) the Commercial General Liability Coverage with a liability limit of $1 million. While this policy was in effect, torrential rains fell in the Atlanta metropolitan area, and the Park "N Go parking lot was flooded. Over 200 automobiles parked in the lot were damaged. A group of Park "N Go's patrons filed in the state court in Fulton County, Georgia, a class action suit against Park "N Go, alleging that a bailment relationship existed, alleging that Park "N Go was negligent, and seeking to recover for damages to their vehicles caused by the flooding. USF & G then filed in the United States District Court a declaratory judgment action against Park "N Go on the insurer's obligations under the insurance policy. Park "N Go answered the complaint, disputing USF & G's interpretation of the contract. USF & G then moved for summary judgment, asserting that its obligation was limited to $250,000 as stated in the Garage Keepers Coverage portion of the policy, instead of the $1 million limit provided in the Garage Liability Coverage and the Commercial General Liability Coverage portions of the policy. The district court granted USF & G's Motion for Summary Judgment. The court concluded that "because the autos parked and damaged in defendant's lot were necessarily in the "care' of defendant, that provision of the policy excluding from coverage personal property in the "care, custody or control' of the insured applies." The district courtnoted that Georgia law is unclear on the issue of bailment and unclear on whether a disclaimer on the ticket to park is valid; but the court still concluded that a bailment relationship existed between Park "N Go and its patrons and concluded that "the mere existence of a printed disclaimer on the parking ticket does not operate to rebut the statutory presumption of a bailment relationship between the defendant and its patrons." ARGUMENTS PRESENTED A. Whether a Bailment Relationship Existed: Park 'N Go argues that the Garage Liability and Commercial Liability Coverage provisions of the policy cover the damages caused to its patrons' vehicles as a result of the flooding, and Park 'N Go says that the exclusion from those provisions for vehicles within Park 'N Go's "care, custody or control" does not apply because those vehicles were not within Park 'N Go's "care, custody or control," particularly considering that no bailment relationship existed. In concluding that the vehicles were in Park 'N Go's "care, custody or control," the district court considered (1) the specific terms of the insurance policy and (2) Georgia law on the issues of bailment and disclaimer. First, the court noted that the Garage Keepers portion of the policy provided coverage for covered autos left in the insured's care while the insured is " "attending, servicing, repairing, parking or storing it in [its] garage operations.' " From this, thedistrict court concluded that,


View Full Document

UNCW BLA 361 - Park N Go v. Fidelity

Documents in this Course
TWO PESOS

TWO PESOS

16 pages

Reading

Reading

13 pages

Russia

Russia

113 pages

Contracts

Contracts

55 pages

Property

Property

54 pages

Contracts

Contracts

45 pages

Load more
Download Park N Go v. Fidelity
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Park N Go v. Fidelity and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Park N Go v. Fidelity 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?