Infinity General Ins. Co. v. Russell Graham

PER CURIAM: This case returns to us after we certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding its law of automobile insurance policy cancellation. Infinity Gen. Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 570 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.2009). The Georgia Supreme Court has answered our question in the negative. Reynolds v. Infinity Gen. Ins. Co., 287 Ga. 86, 694 S.E.2d 387 (2010). For background information on this case, we refer the reader to our previous opinion, Infinity Gen. Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 570 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.2009). In that case, we certified the following question: IS A NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, PROPERLY GIVEN AFTER THE PREMIUM IS PAST DUE, INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INSURED TO KEEP THE POLICY IN FORCE BY PAYING THE PAST-DUE PREMIUM WITHIN THE STATUTORY TEN-DAY PERIOD? 570 F.3d at 1232. In answering the question, the Georgia Supreme Court examined the language of the cancellation notice at issue and found it unambiguous. 694 S.E.2d at 338-39. It distinguished the cases upon which Appellants relied, and stated that public policy supported its interpretation. Id. at 343. Because the Georgia Supreme Court determined that the Insurance Company provided effective notice of cancellation under Georgia law, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. AFFIRMED.