 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Strickland v. Auto Owners Insurance Co.6/15/2005
gful death claim against both George and SG, and they sought coverage from Auto Owners. Auto Owners, however, disputed coverage, arguing that: (1) the Stricklands's claims were covered by separate motor vehicle coverage under the insurance policy from Underwriters; and (2) the accident was excluded under Auto Owner's policy with SG because motor vehicle accidents in general, including the tractor driven by George and the trailer owned by SG, were not covered by the policy. In this ensuing declaratory judgment action, the trial court agreed with Auto Owner's contentions, granting summary judgment to Auto Owners. The Stricklands now appeal this ruling.
1. In considering this case, our prior decision in Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pat's Rental is instructive. In Grain Dealers, this Court analyzed the industry standards for insurance coverage in cases such as this. Therein, the defendant had a commercial general liability policy with an exclusion identical to the one at issue in this case. The defendant also had a motor vehicle liability policy from another insurance company which covered the very risk excluded from coverage under the commercial general liability policy.
In considering coverage to third parties injured in trucking accidents, we held:
Clearly, Grain Dealers fixed the limits of its risk by use of the motor vehicle exclusion language, which also excludes liability for negligent hiring or retention for "bodily injury" or "property damages" arising out of use of a motor vehicle. Pat's Rentals knowingly accepted the policy with this clear and unambiguous exclusion and obtained motor vehicle coverage from Unisun to cover the specifically excluded risk in the CGL policy. The intent of the policy, coupled with the exclusion, controls coverage, not how artfully a claim is drafted to bring inclusion within the coverage language and to avoid the exclusion language. Thus, the underlying facts and circumstances of the claim, rather than the theory of the claim, determine whether or not the exclusion applies. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Pat's Rentals and Unisun and in denying summary judgment to Grain Dealers.
(Citations omitted.) Id. at 856 (a).
Grain Dealers further explains that "the expectations of the insured and the insurers were that there would be two policies of insurance without overlapping coverage and that each insurer would accept a premium for a specific risk insured against as insurance specialists." Id.
The same reasoning is applicable in this case. Here, SG purchased motor vehicle coverage from Underwriters to cover the exact risk excluded under the policy with Auto Owners. SG did so with the expectation that it would be fully covered by the interaction of the two policies as contemplated in Grain Dealers. Therefore, given the standard practices of the trucking industry as considered in Grain Dealers, we cannot say under the circumstances of this case that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Auto Owners.
And, the Stricklands's assertion that the motor vehicle policy was not part of the evidence submitted by Auto Owners in support of its motion for summary judgment and could not be considered by the trial court does not change this result. In its order granting summary judgment to Auto Owners, the trial court stated: "Plaintiff made this factual assertion [regarding the existence of trucking liability coverage] within its written Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and during the February 19, 2004 hearing without objection by Defendants; therefore, the Court shall accept these factual assertions as being true." (Emphasis supplied.)
Page 1 2 3 4 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|