Coverage for 'Diminution in Value' in Commercial Property Insurance Policies

Before Royal Capital Development, a similar scenario was considered in NUCO Investments, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1:02 CV 1622 CAP, 2005 WL 3307089 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2005). There, an insured hotel owner made a claim for post-repair diminution in value damages, which it alleged were covered by a commercial property policy. The particular policy at issue purported to cover “against 'all risk of direct physical loss of or damage to' ' covered property.” NUCO, 2005 WL 3307089, at *1. After discovering mold in the hotel requiring extensive repairs at a cost in excess of $5 million, the insured submitted a claim for property damage to the insurer, but rather than pay the claim the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action.

In NUCO, the court held that post-repair diminution in value damages were covered under the commercial property policy. The court concluded that “if the insured can only be made whole by the payment of diminution in value in addition to repairs, such payment was required under the language of the policies at issue.” Id. at *3.

As authority for its holding, the court in NUCO relied heavily on State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry, 556 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. 2001), a case involving an automobile insurance policy. In Mabry, the court held that a provision requiring the insurer to pay for loss to the insured's car required the insurer also to cover any diminution of value of the repaired vehicle. Mabry, 556 S.E.2d at 122. The court reasoned that “what is lost when physical damage occurs is both utility and value; therefore, the insurer's obligation to pay for the loss includes paying for any lost value.” Id.

Persuaded that this language from Mabry governed disputes arising under commercial property policies as well as automobile policies, the District Court in NUCO reasoned that Mabry “was concerned not with the type of property insured, but with the measure of damages that an insurer is obligated to pay when a policy provides for replacement cost.” NUCO, 2005 WL 3307089, at *4.

However, the Eleventh Circuit was less confident than the NUCO court that Georgia law required coverage for post-repair diminution in value. In Royal Capital Development, an insurer was obligated under a commercial property policy to provide coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” a building, and the insurer had the option of paying either “the cost of repairing the building” or “the loss of value.” See Royal Capital Development, LLC v. Maryland Cas. Co., 659 F.3d 1050, 1055 (11th Cir. 2011).

After construction activity on an adjacent building caused physical damage to the covered building, the insured submitted a claim for repair costs and also post-repair diminution in value of the property caused by the stigma of the building having been damaged in the past. Id. at 1052, 1054. The insurer paid only the costs of repair, and the insured filed suit. However, due to what it perceived as an absence of controlling precedent from Georgia's state courts, the Eleventh Circuit opted not to resolve this issue and instead certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding whether the commercial property insurance policy covered post-repair diminution in value. See id. at 1052.

Answering the certified question, the Georgia Supreme Court confirmed the holding of NUCO and found that post-repair diminution in value damages are covered by a commercial property policy. Royal Capital Development, 728 S.E.2d at 237 (“we thus reject [the] contention that the contract at issue did not include coverage for post-repair diminution in value ' “). Even though the Eleventh Circuit felt that “strong arguments” were raised that Mabry was distinguishable because real property and buildings may not suffer diminution in value akin to automobiles (see Royal Capital Development, 659 F.3d at 1053), the Georgia Supreme Court was not persuaded by such a distinction. It concluded instead that the “ruling in Mabry is not limited by the type of property insured, but rather speaks generally to the measure of damages an insurer is obligated to pay.” Royal Capital Development, 728 S.E.2d at 235. Thereby, the court extended the rule that an automobile policy must cover post-repair diminution in value damages to the context of commercial property insurance policies. Id. at 237.

Other Courts Have Held That Diminution in Value Is Not Covered

In contrast, some other courts have rejected coverage for post-repair diminution in value. In Crestview Country Club, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 321 F.Supp.2d 260, 262 (D. Mass. 2004), the court considered coverage under a commercial property policy related to a golf course. The policy provided that the insurer would “cover direct physical loss or damage to golf course grounds that's caused by [a covered event, including wind.]” Crestview Country Club, 321 F. Supp. 2d at 264.

In Crestview Country Club, the insured suffered loss under the policy when trees on the golf course were destroyed in a wind storm. Conceding that the damages to the trees were covered, the insurer paid a claim for $18,178 for property damage. Id. at 262. However, the insured also alleged that repairs to the golf course to remove the trees were insufficient to restore the property to its pre-storm market value, arguing that the loss of one particular tree ' known as the “Poltergeist Tree” ' negatively impacted the character of the hole. The insured estimated that the cost to construct similar obstacles on the course which would restore the market value thereof to its pre-storm conditions would range from $40,000 to $50,000. Id. at 263. The insurer rejected this claim, contending that the commercial property policy covered only “direct physical” loss to the Poltergeist Tree itself and not diminution in value to the course after physical repairs were complete.

The Massachusetts court agreed with the insurer and held that only repairs to physical damage were covered under the policy. Id. at 264-265. Specifically, the court found that the policy was unambiguous because the word “'physical' must be given its plain meaning ' e.g. 'material.'” Id. at 264. Under this interpretation of the coverage provision, the court held that intangible losses to the nature and difficulty of the course arising from the loss of the Poltergeist Tree did not constitute “physical” damage. Id. at 264-265. More broadly, citing a number of Massachusetts cases, the court pronounced that “[t]he theme of these decisions ' is as follows: once physical damage is fixed and paid for by the insurer, any diminution in value, income or use is not 'physical damage' and, hence, not recoverable under language similar to the clause at issue here.” Id. at 265.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court, 264 Cal.Rptr. 269, 215 Cal.App.3d 1435 (Ct. App. 1989), also involved an insured seeking diminution in value losses under a commercial property insurance policy. There, the insured purchased coverage for a condominium complex, and the policy “generally insured 'against all risks of direct physical loss.'” State Farm, 264 Cal. Rptr. 269, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1437.

In State Farm, the insured submitted an insurance claim for more than $3 million to repair deficiencies in the condominium complex. According to the insured, the structural flaws were due to building code violations, faulty workmanship and fraud by the builder. Id. at 1439. However, because the policy excluded from coverage damages attributable to “latent defect,” and because the insurer denied the claim on the basis of this exclusion, the insured cast its damages in terms of a loss of value. “[The insured] argued the 'damages' to the structures were merely a description of the existing condition of the building and argued the actual loss was the diminished value of the building which was a nonexcluded ensuing loss.” Id. (punctuation omitted).

The court rejected the insured's contention that diminution in value damages were covered by the policy. Id. at 1444-1445. Framing the issue as one of causation, the court asked whether the damages to the condominium complex were caused by a covered “peril” or some other excluded loss. The court held, “'[d]iminution in market value' is not a 'peril' at all; it is a method of measuring damages.” Id. at 1444. Thus, reasoned the court, where other courts have found diminution in value damages covered in the context of commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, these cases were “not ' holding diminution in market value is itself a 'peril.' These cases were not addressing 'perils,' they were addressing liability for damage to the defective product itself.” Id.

Ultimately, then, because it found that diminution in market value is not a loss for which a commercial property policy must provide coverage, the court held that the property damage was excluded under the policy language as a latent defect. Id. at 1445. See also Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809 (1993) (in context of homeowner's insurance policy, “[d]iminution in market value is not a covered peril”).

Will Courts Deem Other Policies Relevant to the Analysis?

Although few cases have addressed whether post-repair diminution in value damages are available under commercial property policies, a number of courts have considered similar issues in the context of CGL policies. See, e.g., Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Concrete Units, Inc., 363 N.W.2d 751 (Minn. 1985); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Vieira, 930 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1991); Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. McIbs, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 246 (D. Nev. 1988); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Eljer Mfg., Inc., 757 N.E.2d 481 (Ill. 2001); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Co., 607 N.W. 276 (Wis. 2000). Many of these cases involve similar policy language regarding “property damage” to that present in Royal Capital Development.

In future cases addressing the diminution in value issue under commercial property policies, courts may be tempted to rely upon earlier interpretations of CGL policy language. Indeed, in Crestview Country Club, the Massachusetts court did just that. See Crestview Country Club, 321 F.Supp.2d at 265 (citing Aetna Life & Cas. v. Patrick Indus., Inc., 645 N.E.2d 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) for the proposition that the majority of courts holding that intangible damages, such as diminution in value, do not constitute property damage, even though those cases interpret CGL policy language).

However, at least one court has strongly rebuked this approach. In State Farm, the court noted that the distinction between a CGL policy and a commercial property policy was significant. State Farm, 264 CalRptr. 269, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1442. Under most commercial property insurance policies, “[c]overage ' is commonly provided by reference to causation, e.g., loss caused by certain enumerated perils ' such as lightning, wind, and explosion, which bring about the loss.” Id. at 1442-1443 (punctuation omitted).

On the other hand, coverage under typical CGL policy language draws on traditional tort concepts of fault, proximate cause, and duty which, according to the court, cover a “broader spectrum of risks.” Id. at 1443. “Thus, the 'cause' of loss in the context of a property insurance contract is totally different from that in a liability policy.” Id. For at least this court, an application of case law interpreting CGL policy language is inappropriate.

Also, some courts have addressed the post-repair diminution in value coverage in the context of homeowner's insurance policies. According to at least one court, there exists “a legitimate question ' as to whether simple diminution in value or 'loss of market value' constitutes 'property damage' within the meaning of the standard homeowner's casualty policy.” Mock v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594, 598 & n.2 (1992). But see Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 16 Cal. App. 4th 184, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809 (1993) (under California law, “[d]iminution in market value is not a covered peril” under a homeowner's policy).

At least one case involving a homeowner's policy appears to leave room for post-repair diminution in value coverage. See Fusco v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 871 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (denying coverage for post-repair diminution in value on grounds that real estate appraiser's testimony was speculative, rather than because such damages were not covered). Cases such as these which interpret homeowner's policies may be more analogous to commercial property coverage disputes because they are of similar coverage.

Conclusion

Few courts have considered the issue of whether post-repair diminution in value damages are recoverable under a commercial property policy. In Royal Capital Development, the Georgia Supreme Court recently announced that commercial property policies governed by Georgia law do cover post-repair diminished value. In so holding, the court relied upon and extended earlier cases finding such coverage in the context of similar automobile policies.

The holding in Royal Capital Development stands in contrast to those of other courts which have rejected coverage for diminution in value under commercial property policies. However, because the issue has been considered by so few courts, it is difficult to say that a majority rule has emerged. It remains to be seen whether the courts of other states, particularly those that mandate post-repair diminution in value damages for automobile policies, will follow Georgia's lead in extending such coverage to commercial property policies.

Lewis E. Hassett is a partner with Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, where he is chair of the firm's Litigation Group and co-chair of the firm's Insurance/Reinsurance Practice Group. Hassett may be reached at [email protected] or 404-504-7762. Ryan C. Burke is an associate at the firm. He may be reached at [email protected] or 404-364-7455.

'

'

'

Cases in numerous states mandate coverage for post-repair diminution of value under automobile policies. S ee, e.g., MFA Ins. Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of Hope , 545 S.W.2d 70 (Ark. 1977) (“the proper measure of damages was the difference in the value before it was wrecked and the value after it was wrecked, repaired, and tendered to the insured”); Venable v. Imp. Volkswagen, Inc. , 519 P.2d 667 (Kan. 1974); Potomac Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson , 57 So. 2d 158 (Miss. 1952); Dunmire Motor Co. v. Oregon Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 114 P.2d 1005 (Or. 1941); Ciresi v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. , 244 N.W. 688 (Minn. 1932); Edwards v. Maryland Motorcar Ins. Co. , 197 N.Y.S. 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922); Hyden v. Farmers Ins. Exch. , 20 P.3d 1222 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). But few mandate such coverage under commercial property policies not covering automobiles.

In Royal Capital Development, LLC v. Maryland Cas. Co. , 728 S.E.2d 234 (Ga. 2012), the Georgia Supreme Court recently announced that commercial property insurance policies governed by Georgia law provide coverage for post-repair diminution in value damages. This case generally stands in contrast to the earlier holdings of courts in other states, which had held that post-repair diminution in value damages are not covered under commercial property policies. Because few courts have addressed this issue at all, the holding of Royal Capital Development may prove significant.

Georgia Supreme Court Confirms That Post-Repair Diminution In Value Is Covered

Before Royal Capital Development, a similar scenario was considered in NUCO Investments, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1:02 CV 1622 CAP, 2005 WL 3307089 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2005). There, an insured hotel owner made a claim for post-repair diminution in value damages, which it alleged were covered by a commercial property policy. The particular policy at issue purported to cover “against 'all risk of direct physical loss of or damage to' ' covered property.” NUCO, 2005 WL 3307089, at *1. After discovering mold in the hotel requiring extensive repairs at a cost in excess of $5 million, the insured submitted a claim for property damage to the insurer, but rather than pay the claim the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action.

In NUCO, the court held that post-repair diminution in value damages were covered under the commercial property policy. The court concluded that “if the insured can only be made whole by the payment of diminution in value in addition to repairs, such payment was required under the language of the policies at issue.” Id. at *3.

As authority for its holding, the court in NUCO relied heavily on State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry , 556 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. 2001), a case involving an automobile insurance policy. In Mabry, the court held that a provision requiring the insurer to pay for loss to the insured's car required the insurer also to cover any diminution of value of the repaired vehicle. Mabry, 556 S.E.2d at 122. The court reasoned that “what is lost when physical damage occurs is both utility and value; therefore, the insurer's obligation to pay for the loss includes paying for any lost value.” Id.

Persuaded that this language from Mabry governed disputes arising under commercial property policies as well as automobile policies, the District Court in NUCO reasoned that Mabry “was concerned not with the type of property insured, but with the measure of damages that an insurer is obligated to pay when a policy provides for replacement cost.” NUCO, 2005 WL 3307089, at *4.

However, the Eleventh Circuit was less confident than the NUCO court that Georgia law required coverage for post-repair diminution in value. In Royal Capital Development , an insurer was obligated under a commercial property policy to provide coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” a building, and the insurer had the option of paying either “the cost of repairing the building” or “the loss of value.” See Royal Capital Development, LLC v. Maryland Cas. Co. , 659 F.3d 1050, 1055 (11th Cir. 2011).

After construction activity on an adjacent building caused physical damage to the covered building, the insured submitted a claim for repair costs and also post-repair diminution in value of the property caused by the stigma of the building having been damaged in the past. Id. at 1052, 1054. The insurer paid only the costs of repair, and the insured filed suit. However, due to what it perceived as an absence of controlling precedent from Georgia's state courts, the Eleventh Circuit opted not to resolve this issue and instead certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding whether the commercial property insurance policy covered post-repair diminution in value. See id. at 1052.

Answering the certified question, the Georgia Supreme Court confirmed the holding of NUCO and found that post-repair diminution in value damages are covered by a commercial property policy. Royal Capital Development, 728 S.E.2d at 237 (“we thus reject [the] contention that the contract at issue did not include coverage for post-repair diminution in value ' “). Even though the Eleventh Circuit felt that “strong arguments” were raised that Mabry was distinguishable because real property and buildings may not suffer diminution in value akin to automobiles (see Royal Capital Development, 659 F.3d at 1053), the Georgia Supreme Court was not persuaded by such a distinction. It concluded instead that the “ruling in Mabry is not limited by the type of property insured, but rather speaks generally to the measure of damages an insurer is obligated to pay.” Royal Capital Development, 728 S.E.2d at 235. Thereby, the court extended the rule that an automobile policy must cover post-repair diminution in value damages to the context of commercial property insurance policies. Id. at 237.

Other Courts Have Held That Diminution in Value Is Not Covered

In contrast, some other courts have rejected coverage for post-repair diminution in value. In Crestview Country Club, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. , 321 F.Supp.2d 260, 262 (D. Mass. 2004), the court considered coverage under a commercial property policy related to a golf course. The policy provided that the insurer would “cover direct physical loss or damage to golf course grounds that's caused by [a covered event, including wind.]” Crestview Country Club, 321 F. Supp. 2d at 264.

In Crestview Country Club, the insured suffered loss under the policy when trees on the golf course were destroyed in a wind storm. Conceding that the damages to the trees were covered, the insurer paid a claim for $18,178 for property damage. Id. at 262. However, the insured also alleged that repairs to the golf course to remove the trees were insufficient to restore the property to its pre-storm market value, arguing that the loss of one particular tree ' known as the “Poltergeist Tree” ' negatively impacted the character of the hole. The insured estimated that the cost to construct similar obstacles on the course which would restore the market value thereof to its pre-storm conditions would range from $40,000 to $50,000. Id. at 263. The insurer rejected this claim, contending that the commercial property policy covered only “direct physical” loss to the Poltergeist Tree itself and not diminution in value to the course after physical repairs were complete.

The Massachusetts court agreed with the insurer and held that only repairs to physical damage were covered under the policy. Id. at 264-265. Specifically, the court found that the policy was unambiguous because the word “'physical' must be given its plain meaning ' e.g. 'material.'” Id. at 264. Under this interpretation of the coverage provision, the court held that intangible losses to the nature and difficulty of the course arising from the loss of the Poltergeist Tree did not constitute “physical” damage. Id. at 264-265. More broadly, citing a number of Massachusetts cases, the court pronounced that “[t]he theme of these decisions ' is as follows: once physical damage is fixed and paid for by the insurer, any diminution in value, income or use is not 'physical damage' and, hence, not recoverable under language similar to the clause at issue here.” Id. at 265.

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court , 264 Cal.Rptr. 269, 215 Cal.App.3d 1435 (Ct. App. 1989), also involved an insured seeking diminution in value losses under a commercial property insurance policy. There, the insured purchased coverage for a condominium complex, and the policy “generally insured 'against all risks of direct physical loss.'” State Farm, 264 Cal. Rptr. 269, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1437.

In State Farm, the insured submitted an insurance claim for more than $3 million to repair deficiencies in the condominium complex. According to the insured, the structural flaws were due to building code violations, faulty workmanship and fraud by the builder. Id. at 1439. However, because the policy excluded from coverage damages attributable to “latent defect,” and because the insurer denied the claim on the basis of this exclusion, the insured cast its damages in terms of a loss of value. “[The insured] argued the 'damages' to the structures were merely a description of the existing condition of the building and argued the actual loss was the diminished value of the building which was a nonexcluded ensuing loss.” Id. (punctuation omitted).

The court rejected the insured's contention that diminution in value damages were covered by the policy. Id. at 1444-1445. Framing the issue as one of causation, the court asked whether the damages to the condominium complex were caused by a covered “peril” or some other excluded loss. The court held, “'[d]iminution in market value' is not a 'peril' at all; it is a method of measuring damages.” Id. at 1444. Thus, reasoned the court, where other courts have found diminution in value damages covered in the context of commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, these cases were “not ' holding diminution in market value is itself a 'peril.' These cases were not addressing 'perils,' they were addressing liability for damage to the defective product itself.” Id.

Ultimately, then, because it found that diminution in market value is not a loss for which a commercial property policy must provide coverage, the court held that the property damage was excluded under the policy language as a latent defect. Id. at 1445. See also Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809 (1993) (in context of homeowner's insurance policy, “[d]iminution in market value is not a covered peril”).

Will Courts Deem Other Policies Relevant to the Analysis?

Although few cases have addressed whether post-repair diminution in value damages are available under commercial property policies, a number of courts have considered similar issues in the context of CGL policies. See, e.g., Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Concrete Units, Inc. , 363 N.W.2d 751 (Minn. 1985); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Vieira , 930 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1991); Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. McIbs, Inc. , 684 F. Supp. 246 (D. Nev. 1988); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Eljer Mfg., Inc. , 757 N.E.2d 481 (Ill. 2001); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Cas. Co. , 607 N.W. 276 (Wis. 2000). Many of these cases involve similar policy language regarding “property damage” to that present in Royal Capital Development.

In future cases addressing the diminution in value issue under commercial property policies, courts may be tempted to rely upon earlier interpretations of CGL policy language. Indeed, in Crestview Country Club, the Massachusetts court did just that. See Crestview Country Club , 321 F.Supp.2d at 265 (citing Aetna Life & Cas. v. Patrick Indus., Inc. , 645 N.E.2d 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) for the proposition that the majority of courts holding that intangible damages, such as diminution in value, do not constitute property damage, even though those cases interpret CGL policy language).

However, at least one court has strongly rebuked this approach. In State Farm, the court noted that the distinction between a CGL policy and a commercial property policy was significant. State Farm, 264 CalRptr. 269, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1442. Under most commercial property insurance policies, “[c]overage ' is commonly provided by reference to causation, e.g., loss caused by certain enumerated perils ' such as lightning, wind, and explosion, which bring about the loss.” Id. at 1442-1443 (punctuation omitted).

On the other hand, coverage under typical CGL policy language draws on traditional tort concepts of fault, proximate cause, and duty which, according to the court, cover a “broader spectrum of risks.” Id. at 1443. “Thus, the 'cause' of loss in the context of a property insurance contract is totally different from that in a liability policy.” Id. For at least this court, an application of case law interpreting CGL policy language is inappropriate.

Also, some courts have addressed the post-repair diminution in value coverage in the context of homeowner's insurance policies. According to at least one court, there exists “a legitimate question ' as to whether simple diminution in value or 'loss of market value' constitutes 'property damage' within the meaning of the standard homeowner's casualty policy.” Mock v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. , 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 594, 598 & n.2 (1992). But see Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 16 Cal. App. 4th 184, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809 (1993) (under California law, “[d]iminution in market value is not a covered peril” under a homeowner's policy).

At least one case involving a homeowner's policy appears to leave room for post-repair diminution in value coverage. See Fusco v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 871 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (denying coverage for post-repair diminution in value on grounds that real estate appraiser's testimony was speculative, rather than because such damages were not covered). Cases such as these which interpret homeowner's policies may be more analogous to commercial property coverage disputes because they are of similar coverage.

Conclusion

Few courts have considered the issue of whether post-repair diminution in value damages are recoverable under a commercial property policy. In Royal Capital Development, the Georgia Supreme Court recently announced that commercial property policies governed by Georgia law do cover post-repair diminished value. In so holding, the court relied upon and extended earlier cases finding such coverage in the context of similar automobile policies.

The holding in Royal Capital Development stands in contrast to those of other courts which have rejected coverage for diminution in value under commercial property policies. However, because the issue has been considered by so few courts, it is difficult to say that a majority rule has emerged. It remains to be seen whether the courts of other states, particularly those that mandate post-repair diminution in value damages for automobile policies, will follow Georgia's lead in extending such coverage to commercial property policies.

Lewis E. Hassett is a partner with Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, where he is chair of the firm's Litigation Group and co-chair of the firm's Insurance/Reinsurance Practice Group. Hassett may be reached at [email protected] or 404-504-7762. Ryan C. Burke is an associate at the firm. He may be reached at [email protected] or 404-364-7455.

'

'

'