Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Thomas Hagy, et al. v. Southern Insurance Company of Virginia

District Court, M.D. Georgia

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 5:25-cv-00100

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

MACON DIVISION

THOMAS HAGY, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-100 (MTT)

)

SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY )

OF VIRGINIA, )

)

Defendant. )

__________________ )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw admissions and set aside
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ECF 20. For the reasons explained below,
Plaintiffs’ motion (ECF 20) is GRANTED, and the Court DENIES without prejudice
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 14).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Thomas and Teresa Hagy insured their property with Southern
Insurance Company of Virginia (“Southern”). ECF 9 ¶¶ 5–7. They seek recovery against
Southern for losses sustained on the property following a plumbing system failure. See
ECF 9. Southern paid Plaintiffs $5,000, but Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to more
under the insurance policy. Id. ¶¶ 16, 23. They brought suit against Southern for breach
of contract and bad faith. Id. ¶¶ 21–41.

Southern served Plaintiffs with Requests for Admissions. See ECF 14-2 ¶ 2.
Some of Southern’s requested admissions are dispositive of the claims in this case. See
ECF 14-1. For example, Southern requested Plaintiffs admit “Southern has issued
payment for the full amount of coverage available under the policy for the claimed loss,”
which goes to the heart of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim. ECF 14-1 ¶ 5. Southern
also requested Plaintiffs admit, “Southern has not been guilty of any bad faith in relation
to [Plaintiffs’] claimed loss.” Id. ¶ 10.

Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to Southern’s requests. Consequently,

Southern’s Requests for Admissions were deemed admitted under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 36(a)(3),1 and Southern filed a motion for summary judgment, relying on
Plaintiffs’ deemed admissions. See ECF 14. Plaintiffs also failed to respond to
Southern’s motion for summary judgment.2 Shortly before the close of discovery,
Plaintiffs moved to withdraw their deemed admissions and set aside Southern’s motion
for summary judgment. See ECF 20.

II. STANDARD

Courts follow a two-part test when ruling on a motion to withdraw or amend
admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b). See Perez v. Miami-Dade
Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1264 (11th Cir. 2002); King v. Truist Bank, 2025 WL 2814699, at

*1 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025). A court should (1) “consider whether the withdrawal will
subserve the presentation of the merits” and (2) “determine whether the withdrawal will
prejudice the party who obtained the admissions in its presentation of the case.” Perez, 297 F.3d at 1264. Rule 36(b)’s withdrawal provision “emphasizes the importance of
having the action resolved on the merits, while at the same time assuring each party

1 Under Rule 36(a)(3), a party to whom Requests for Admission are directed must answer or object to the
requests within thirty days, or the matter will be deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).

2 Plaintiffs’ initial counsel of record left the firm representing Plaintiffs, which somewhat explains, but does
not excuse, Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this case. ECF 20 at 1–2.

that justified reliance on an admission in preparation for trial will not operate to his
prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) advisory committee's note to 1970 amendment.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Withdrawing Admissions

  1.  Presentation of the merits                                     
The first part of the test for withdrawing admissions is “satisfied when upholding 

the admissions would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case.”
Perez, 297 F.3d at 1266 (quoting Hadley v. United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1348 (9th Cir.
1995)). Here, Plaintiffs’ deemed admissions, unless withdrawn, dispose of this case in
its entirety. See ECF 14, 14-1. The deemed admissions provide that Southern has paid
the full amount of coverage available under the insurance policy for the claimed loss,
disposing of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, and that Southern has not engaged in
bad faith in relation to Plaintiffs’ loss, disposing of Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. ECF 14-1 ¶¶
5, 10. Because upholding these admissions would eliminate any presentation of the

merits of this case, part one of the test for withdrawing admissions is satisfied.
Southern argues Plaintiffs have not sufficiently articulated in their briefing how
withdrawing their admissions would subserve the merits. ECF 21 at 5–7. Southern
points to King, where the Eleventh Circuit held a district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying a pro se plaintiff’s motion to withdraw his admissions where the
plaintiff’s motion “stated only that the withdrawal would subserve presentation of the
merits” because “these admission[s] address [] nearly all the essential elements of the
claim.” 2025 WL 2814699, at *1. The plaintiff in King failed to “identify which admissions
he sought to withdraw, explain how he would have answered, or discuss how his
withdrawal would aid in developing the merits of his case.” Id. Unlike the plaintiff in King,
Plaintiffs here have identified specific admissions that go to the merits of their case,
attached an exhibit with their proposed amended admissions, and have explained how
withdrawal will allow their theory of recovery––that additional payment is owed under

the terms of the insurance policy––to proceed on the merits. See ECF 20 at 5–8; ECF
20-1. In short, Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that withdrawal subserves
presentation of this case on the merits.3

2. Prejudice to the non-moving party

The Court next considers whether allowing withdrawal would prejudice Southern
in its presentation of the case. See Perez, 297 F.3d at 1264. Prejudice is not “simply
that the party who initially obtained the admission will now have to convince the fact
finder of its truth.” Id. at 1266 (quoting Smith v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 837 F.2d
1575, 1578 (11th Cir. 1988)). Rather, prejudice “relates to the difficulty a party may face
in proving its case, e.g., caused by the unavailability of key witnesses, because of the

sudden need to obtain evidence with respect to the questions previously answered by
the admissions.” Id. (quoting Smith, 837 F.2d at 1578). Thus, “a court is more likely to
find prejudice when a party seeks to withdraw its admissions once trial has already
begun.” Id. at 1267.

Here, Plaintiffs filed their motion to withdraw admissions near the close of
discovery after largely failing to engage in discovery throughout the discovery period.

3 Southern also seems to argue that allowing Plaintiffs to withdraw their admissions would not subserve
presentation on the merits because Plaintiffs do not intend to dispute the terms of the insurance policy,
only the policy’s meaning. ECF 21 at 6. But whether the insurance policy limits Plaintiffs’ recovery in this
case to $5,000 is a merits question that Plaintiffs seek to dispute by withdrawing their admissions. See
ECF 20 at 5–8.

See ECF 12; ECF 20; ECF 21 at 8. Southern argues it relied on Plaintiffs’ deemed
admissions to prepare a defense strategy, foregoing opportunities to develop discovery
such that Southern will be prejudiced if the Court permits withdrawal so near the close
of discovery. ECF 21 at 8. Absent a discovery extension, Southern may very well face

prejudice due to a sudden need to obtain evidence prior to trial. But Plaintiffs offered to
extend discovery, and the Court has extended the discovery period commensurate with
the lapse of Plaintiffs’ engagement in the discovery process. See ECF 20 at 2; ECF 22.
Southern has not offered any other reason why allowing withdrawal would create
difficulties for Southern in proving its case, nor can the Court discern one. See ECF 21.
Accordingly, the second part of the test for withdrawing admissions is also satisfied.
That said, if the test were whether Plaintiffs’ conduct in this case merits
withdrawal, this would be a different order. Plaintiffs not only failed to respond to
Requests for Admissions but also failed to diligently prosecute this case by complying
with the Court’s discovery orders. But the neglect of Plaintiffs’ lawyers is not alone

enough to support a denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw. See Perez, 297 F.3d at
1266 (explaining the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion to withdraw
admissions for “utter neglect” and “flagrant disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure” without reference to the two-part test from Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 36(b)).
Because permitting withdrawal here allows for the presentation of this case on the
merits and does not prejudice Southern, Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw its admissions
(ECF 20) is GRANTED.

B. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Southern’s motion for summary judgment is supported almost entirely by
Plaintiffs’ deemed admissions. See ECF 14. Indeed, Southern’s statement of material
facts cites almost exclusively to Plaintiffs’ deemed admissions. See ECF 14-4.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice4 Southern’s motion for summary

judgment (ECF 14).

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw admissions (ECF 20) is GRANTED. Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF 14) is DENIED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of January, 2026.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell

MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 To the extent Southern argues it is still entitled to summary judgment in light of Plaintiffs’ amended
response to Southern’s Request for Admissions, Southern may again move for summary judgment.