Langley v. MP Spring Lake, LLC.
Decision Date | 21 October 2019 |
Docket Number | S18G1326 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | LANGLEY v. MP SPRING LAKE, LLC. |
Matthew Gebhardt, Gebhardt Law Firm, 235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Naveen Ramachandrappa, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 3900, Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3417, for Appellant.
Dana J. Norman, Thomas Charles Blaska, II, Thomas C. Blaska, The Blaska Law Firm, 8565 Dunwoody Place, Building 15, Suite A, Atlanta, Georgia 30350-3332, Laura Wilson Speed, Speed & King LLC, 4200 Northside Parkway, NW, Building 14, Suite 350, Atlanta, Georgia 30327, John David Hadden, The Hadden Law Firm, LLC, 44 Broad Street, Suite 600, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Caleb Frank Walker, Katherine L. McArthur, LLC, 6055 Lakeside Commons Drive, Suite 400, Macon, Georgia 31210, Janise L. Miller, Post Office Box 11229, Atlanta, Georgia 30310, Kenneth M. Sissel, Alan B. Gordon, 746 Pleasant Hill Road Lilburn, Georgia 30047, Eugene C. Brooks, IV, Brooks Law Office, P.O. Box 9545, Savannah, Georgia 31412, Cole Thaler, Crystal Angelique Redd, Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation, 235 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1750 Atlanta, Georgia 30303, for Amicus Appellant.
Sun S. Choy, Jacob Edward Daly, Wes C. Jackson, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP, 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600, Atlanta, Georgia 30339-5948, for Appellee.
Mark W. Wortham, Austin Atkinson, Pearson Kern Cunningham, Hall Booth Smith, P.C., 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Ste. 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1775, Hall F. McKinley, III, Drew, Eckl & Farnham, LLP, P. O. Box 7600, Atlanta, Georgia 30357, Martin Adam Levinson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, 303 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4000, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Garret Warrington Meader, Drew Eckl & Farnham LLP, 777 Gloucester Street, Suite 305, Brunswick, Georgia 31520, James Miachaell Williams, Fowler Hein Passino Cheatwood & Williams, LLP, 2970 Clairmont Road, Suite 220, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, John J. McDermott, National Apartment Association, 4300 Wilson Boulevard, Ste. 800, Arlington, Virginia 22203, for Amicus Appellee.
Kevin Patrick Branch, Zach M. Matthews, McMickle, Kurey & Branch, LLP, 217 Roswell Street, Suite 200 Alpharetta, Georgia 30009, for Other Party.
In Langley v. MP Spring Lake, LLC , 345 Ga. App. 739, 813 S.E.2d 441 (2018), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of MP Spring Lake ("Spring Lake") on two premises-liability tort claims brought by Pamela Langley. Langley petitioned for certiorari, which we granted, posing the following two questions: (1) Does the "Limitations on Actions" provision of Langley’s lease contract apply to her premises-liability tort action against MP Spring Lake, LLC?; and (2) If so, is that provision enforceable?
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the provision is not applicable to Langley’s premises-liability tort action against Spring Lake. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings. In light of that conclusion, we do not reach the second question.
As set forth by the Court of Appeals in a light most favorable to Langley, the facts of this case are as follows:
Langley , 345 Ga. App. at 739-740, 813 S.E.2d 441.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the Limitation Provision applied to Langley’s premises-liability tort action. Id. at 743, 813 S.E.2d 441. The Court of Appeals determined that the language of the Limitation Provision was clear and unambiguous, which foreclosed it being read, as Langley urged, to apply only to actions arising from the lease itself. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeals focused on the phrase "any legal action," summarily concluding that, "[a]lthough the language of the ... [Limitation Provision] is broad and does not explicitly specify that it includes personal injury actions, it nevertheless encompasses any legal action Langley might have instituted against the owner or management of her apartment complex." (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 743, 813 S.E.2d 441.
In support of this conclusion, the Court of Appeals noted that "contractual-limitation-period clauses are enforceable in Georgia" and that "Langley [pointed] to no supporting authority that holds such provisions are inapplicable to personal-injury actions." Id. at 742-743, 813 S.E.2d 441. But in so holding, the Court of Appeals relied upon cases interpreting time-limitation provisions contained in insurance policies, in cases involving claims brought under the policy. See, e.g., Thornton v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. , 287 Ga. 379, 380 (1), 695 S.E.2d 642 (2010) ( ); Rain & Hail Ins. Servs. Inc. v. Vickery , 274 Ga. App. 424, 425 (1), 618 S.E.2d 111 (2005) ( ); Dailey v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. , 207 Ga. App. 139, 140, 427 S.E.2d 109 (1993) ( ).
By focusing narrowly on the language of the Limitation Provision without regard to the full context of the lease agreement of which it was a part, the Court of Appeals’ analysis failed to address the more fundamental problem at issue. Specifically, the question here is not whether contractual time-limitation provisions are generally enforceable in this State; that question is clearly answered in the affirmative as to claims for breach of contract.1 Rather, the question is whether the Limitation Provision agreed to by the parties in this case, who were at the time creating a landlord-tenant relationship, applies to Langley’s premises-liability tort claim. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that it does not.
"On appeal, this Court’s review of a trial court’s construction of a contract is de novo." (Citation omitted.) Borders v. City of Atlanta , 298 Ga. 188, 197 (II), 779 S.E.2d 279 (2015). To begin our inquiry, we invoke the familiar framework of contractual construction, which involves three steps:
First, the trial court must decide whether the language is clear and unambiguous. If it is, the court simply enforces the contract according to its clear terms; the contract alone is looked to for its meaning. Next, if the contract is ambiguous in some respect, the court must apply the rules of contract construction to resolve the ambiguity. Finally, if the ambiguity remains after applying the rules of construction, the issue of what the ambiguous language means and what the parties intended must be resolved by a jury.
(Citation omitted.) City of Baldwin v. Woodard & Curran, Inc. , 293 Ga. 19, 30 (3), 743 S.E.2d 381 (2013).
(Citations omitted.) Unified Gov’t of Athens-Clarke Co. v. Stiles Apartments, Inc. , 295 Ga. 829, 832, 764 S.E.2d 403 (2014) ; see also OCGA § 13-2-3.
In the face of ambiguity, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Langley v. MP Spring Lake, LLC., S18G1326
...307 Ga. 321834 S.E.2d 800LANGLEYv.MP SPRING LAKE, LLC.S18G1326Supreme Court of Georgia.Decided: October 21, 2019Matthew Gebhardt, Gebhardt Law Firm, 235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Naveen Ramachandrappa, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, 1201 West Peachtree Street......
-
From Transient to Tenant Overnite: the Georgia Court of Appeals Leaves Room for Improvement in the Rights of Extended-stay Motel Residents
...at 24, 870 S.E.2d at 554.69. Id. at 22-23, 870 S.E.2d at 553-54.70. Id. at 24, 870 S.E.2d at 554; see also Langley v. MP Spring Lake, LLC, 307 Ga. 321, 324, 834 S.E.2d 800, 804 ("[W]here there is ambiguity, the agreement will be construed against the drafter and in favor of the non-drafter.......