GEICO v. Dickey, 43004
| Decision Date | 11 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 43004,43004 |
| Citation | 340 S.E.2d 595,255 Ga. 661 |
| Parties | GEICO v. DICKEY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Arthur H. Glaser, G. Randall Moody, Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Atlanta, Richard A. Rominger, Fredric W. Stearns, Brennan, Harris & Rominger, Savannah, for Government Employees Ins. Co.
Richard A. Brown, Jr., John E. Bumgartner, Dickey, Whelchel, Brown & Readdick, Brunswick, J. William Harvey, Jessup, Walter Bilbro, Jr., Charleston, S.C., for Thomas J. Dickey, Jr., et al.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has certified the following question to this court: Would Georgia law require that the family or household exclusion clause in this automobile liability insurance contract be enforced to permit a denial of coverage and defense in a suit brought against the named insured by the estate of his wife and by the stepdaughter of the named insured?
The insured, Thomas Dickey, was driving in North Carolina with his wife and stepdaughter. His car rolled down an embankment, killing his wife and injuring his stepdaughter. The administratrix of his wife's estate and his stepdaughter brought an action for damages in North Carolina, which has no family tort immunity. Dickey reported the claim to his insurer with a request for defense. Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter GEICO), Dickey's insurer, took the position that the claims were not covered and brought a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to determine the validity of a family exclusion clause in Dickey's liability insurance policy.
The district court denied GEICO's motion for summary judgment and granted Dickey summary judgment. The court found that the Georgia choice of laws rule was applicable to the construction of the clause. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941). Under Georgia conflicts law a question of contract construction is governed by the law of the state in which the last act essential to the creation of the contract occurred. General Telephone Co. of the Southeast v. Trimm, 252 Ga. 95, 311 S.E.2d 460 (1984). In the case of the present contract, the court found that Georgia law applies. The court then went on to reason that since Georgia's insurance laws authorize no exclusion for liability insurance coverage, any exclusion must be consistent with an existing legal disability. Further, since in Harris v. Harris, 252 Ga. 387, 313 S.E.2d 88 (1984), this court made certain inroads on intrafamily tort immunity, such immunity could no longer be considered a blanket legal disability. The court concluded that under Georgia law a family immunity exclusion would be valid only in cases where intrafamily immunity would be imposed. For example, it would apply in those cases in which there was danger of collusion.
The difficulty with the conclusion of the district court is that the court leaps from the finding that intrafamily tort immunity is no longer an ironclad doctrine in Georgia to the conclusion that a family exclusion clause is against public policy. We do not agree that modification of intrafamily tort immunity in Georgia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilder v. Jefferson Ins. Co. of New York, A01A1410.
...punctuation omitted.) Stepho v. Allstate Ins. Co., 259 Ga. 475, 476(1), 383 S.E.2d 887 (1989). See also Govt. Employees Ins. Co. v. Dickey, 255 Ga. 661, 662, 340 S.E.2d 595 (1986); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Neese, 254 Ga. 335, 341(1), 329 S.E.2d 136 (1985); Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. D......
-
87 Hawai'i 430, Salviejo v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...tort immunity of this state, the exclusion would be against public policy.' " Chaney, 381 S.E.2d at 748 (quoting GEICO v. Dickey, 255 Ga. 661, 340 S.E.2d 595, 596-97 (1986)) (emphasis added). However, examination of Dickey indicates that the exclusion was invalidated because of Georgia's ma......
-
A. Atlanta AutoSave v. Generali-US Branch
...public to be a policy that is "overriding." Stepho v. Allstate Ins. Co., 259 Ga. 475, 476(1), 383 S.E.2d 887 (1989); GEICO v. Dickey, 255 Ga. 661, 663, 340 S.E.2d 595 (1986). Consequently, this Court must focus not on a perceived statutory entitlement for car rental agencies under OCGA § 40......
-
Woody v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...355, 356, 359 S.E.2d 665 (1987); Integon Indem. Corp. v. Canal Ins. Co., 256 Ga. 692, 694, 353 S.E.2d 186 (1987); GEICO v. Dickey, 255 Ga. 661, 662, 340 S.E.2d 595 (1986); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Neese, supra; Anderson v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., supra. These cases turned on t......
-
Insurance - Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, and Bradley S. Wolff
...19. Manning, 264 Ga. App. at 106, 589 S.E.2d at 690. 20. 264 Ga. App. 229, 590 S.E.2d 206 (2003). 21. Id. at 231, 590 S.E.2d at 208. 22. 255 Ga. 661, 340 S.E.2d 596 (1986). 23. Baldwin, 264 Ga. App. at 231, 590 S.E.2d at 208. 24. Id. 25. Id. 26. Six jurisdictions have considered striking th......
-
Insurance - Stephen M. Schatz, Stephen L. Cotter, and Bradley S. Wolff
...173. Id. 174. Id. (quoting S. Guar. Ins. Co. v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 257 Ga. 355, 356, 359 S.E.2d 665, 667 (1987)). 175. Id. 176. 255 Ga. 661, 340 S.E.2d 595 (1986). 177. Id. at 662, 340 S.E.2d at 596. 178. 259 Ga. 475, 383 S.E.2d 887 (1989). 179. Id. at 477, 383 S.E.2d at 889. 180......