Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Connecticut

• Decision Date: 07 November 1986
• Docket Number: No. 72393,72393
• Citation: 180 Ga.App. 777,350 S.E.2d 325
• Parties: GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 325

350 S.E.2d 325

180 Ga.App. 777

GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT et al.

No. 72393.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Nov. 7, 1986.

Robert H. Preston, Douglas, for appellant.

J. Floyd Thomas, C. Edwin Rozier, Waycross, Franklin D. Rozier, Blackshear, Terry A. Dillard, Bryant H. Bower, Jr., Waycross, for appellees.

BEASLEY, Judge.

This appeal involves the trial court's grant of a summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action. Lewis, driving a vehicle owned by Boyd and insured by Fire and Casualty, collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the Roundtrees. The Roundtrees sued Boyd and Lewis. Fire and Casualty brought the declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that there was no coverage under its policy with Boyd. Georgia Farm, the uninsured motorist carrier for the Roundtrees, intervened and contended there was coverage under the Fire and Casualty contract.

The undisputed facts were that Lewis was driving an automobile owned by Boyd without her knowledge or permission; that Lewis knew he was not allowed the use of the vehicle and if he had asked for permission it would have been denied; and that Lewis and Boyd, cousins, were living with their grandmother in her house.

The insurance policy issued by Fire and Casualty to Boyd stated: "We will pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which any covered person becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident." "Covered person" as defined includes the named insured "or any family member for the ownership, maintenance or use of any auto or trailer" and "any person using your covered auto." Boyd's automobile was "your covered auto" since it was the vehicle named in the policy declaration. With reference to the named insured, " 'family member' means a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household." The policy also contained exclusions, one of which was: "We do not provide Liability Coverage for any person ... using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that that person is entitled to do so."

After discovery, Fire and Casualty sought and won summary judgment on the ground that since Lewis knowingly took the vehicle contrary to instructions and without permission, he was excluded from coverage. Intervenor Georgia Farm appealed.

Fire and Casualty argues that the exclusionary language is plain and unambiguous and thus under the facts here Lewis is not covered by the policy. Georgia Farm counters that, in context with the entire liability provisions, an ambiguity is created. It argues that Lewis is covered both as a family member and operator of the insured vehicle and the term "any person" in the exclusion should have reference only to those who are not so encompassed.

" 'While an ambiguous insurance contract will be liberally construed in favor of the insured, one which, when construed reasonably and in its entirety, unambiguously and lawfully limits the insurer's liability, cannot be expanded beyond what is fairly within its plain terms.' " Cotton States, etc., Ins. Co. v. American, etc., Ins. Co., 140 Ga.App. 657, 658(3), 231 S.E.2d 553 (1976). An insurance policy, like any other contract, must be interpreted according to its plain language and express terms. Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. King, 174 Ga.App. 716, 718(2), 331 S.E.2d 41 (1985). "[W]...