Since 2008, litigation has been ongoing between G.M. Sign, Inc. and Brink’s Manufacturing Co. over allegations that Brink’s violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending out unsolicited faxes without any ability by the recipient to opt out of receiving the faxes. The original 2008 lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in 2009.
G.M. Sign immediately filed an identical suit in Illinois State Court, which settled for $22.54 million. As part of the deal, G.M. Sign was assigned Brinks’ insurance rights under its policy with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. However, Brink’s did not tender the defense of the action brought in Illinois State Court and did not otherwise provide notice to St. Paul of the fact that the suit had been re-filed.
In 2014, G.M. Sign went after St. Paul in Georgia federal court. St. Paul responded that it was not required to cover the claim brought in Georgia because, after the 2009 dismissal without prejudice, it did not receive notice of ongoing or re-filed litigation between the parties. St. Paul maintained that Brink’s failure to provide notice deprived St. Paul of the ability to consider any settlement demand or otherwise resolve the 2009 action.
G.M. maintains that, since the second suit is identical to the first suit, and since St. Paul knew of the first suit, then notice was adequately provided.
Judge Eleanor Ross, serving the Northern Federal District of Georgia, ruled that a dismissal without prejudice “means the suit is over.” Therefore, an insured must provide notice of a re-filed claim or other litigation, no matter how similar to the first lawsuit it may be. Because no such notice was provided in this case, Judge Ross relieved St. Paul from having to provide coverage.
The case has made its way to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: G.M. Sign, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 1:14-cv-02977.