In Century Communities of Georgia LLC v. Selective Way Insurance Co., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2012 opinion in Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co. does not apply to “coverage defenses” — that is, whether a loss is potentially covered under a policy in the first place. Rather, under Hoover, only certain “policy defenses,” meaning whether a procedural condition of the insurance contract has been fulfilled, may be subject to waiver.
Century Communities involved a coverage dispute arising out of the insurer’s refusal to defend an additional insured in an underlying tort action stemming from property damage from pollutants at one of its housing developments. Specifically, the insurer denied coverage because the alleged property damage was not clearly due to the work of the named insured and because the underlying action included allegations against all defendants. The instant coverage action followed, wherein the insurer raised several additional coverage defenses in its answer — including the pollution exclusion. The insured argued that the insurer waived the right to rely on the pollution exclusion because it was not raised in the initial disclaimer to the insured. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The insured appealed.
In affirming the district court’s ruling, the Eleventh Circuit found that the insurer had not waived its coverage defense, even though it had neglected to mention it in its original letter denying coverage. The court turned to Hoover and noted that the Eleventh Circuit previously found that there was no indication that the Georgia Supreme Court intended to upend the long-standing rule that an insurer cannot waive coverage defenses. Because the pollution exclusion enables the carrier to argue that a particular loss is not covered, it is a coverage defense. As a result, the Eleventh Circuit found that the insurer had not waived its ability to assert it.
The Eleventh Circuit noted that its previous rulings regarding Hoover were issued after the district court’s ruling, and as such, the Eleventh Circuit did not reach its result in the same manner as the district court, which had held that the insurer had not waived a coverage defense because waiver is not automatic but rather dependent on the circumstances.
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Insights focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Shareholder
Shareholder
