Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kim
Decision Date | 08 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A98A1686.,A98A1686. |
Citation | 236 Ga. App. 689,512 S.E.2d 46 |
Parties | PEACHTREE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. KIM et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Hertz & Link, Houston D. Smith III, Atlanta, for appellant.
Rowe & Lawler, William P. Rowe III, Duluth, for appellees.
Peachtree Casualty Insurance Company (Peachtree), having filed a declaratory judgment action regarding coverage, appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to its insured Young Ho Kim and State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm) and its insured and claimant under UM coverage, Chan Woo Hyun and So Young Na, in this suit arising from an accident between Kim's automobile and that of Hyun and Na.
Peachtree contends that the following exclusion in its policy precludes liability coverage and its duty to defend because, at the time of the accident, Kim's license had been revoked.1 The definitions section states that "`[y]ou' and `your' mean the `named insured' shown on the Declarations Page and spouse, if a resident of the same household."
As used in the liability part of the policy, "`[i]nsured person' or `insured persons' means: a. You or a relative with respect to an accident involving your insured car. b. You or a relative while driving a non-owned car with permission. c. Any other person driving your insured car with your permission." (Underlined provisions in bold in policy.)
The issue, then, is whether the insured, under this exclusion, can be considered a "permissive user," i.e., does one give oneself permission to drive without a license so as to trigger the exclusion?
Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp., 226 Ga.App. 459(1), 486 S.E.2d 684 (1997).
( ) . Hurst v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 266 Ga. 712, 716(4), 470 S.E.2d 659 (1996).
The clause at issue is not the newer "easy reading" clause addressed in Hurst, but the older "omnibus" clause. Id. at 713(1), 470 S.E.2d 659. The newer clause uses "any person"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arrow Exterminators, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins.
...299 S.E.2d 561 (1983); Hulsey v. Interstate Life & Accident Co., 207 Ga. 167, 169, 60 S.E.2d 353 (1950); Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kim, 236 Ga.App. 689, 690, 512 S.E.2d 46 (1999); Brown v. North Am. Specialty Ins. Co., 235 Ga.App. 299, 303-04, 508 S.E.2d 741 (1998); United States Fire Ins.......
-
Alea London Ltd. v. Am. Home Serv. Inc.
...S.E.2d 156 (2001). “[P]arties to the contract of insurance are bound by its plain and unambiguous terms.” Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kim, 236 Ga.App. 689, 690, 512 S.E.2d 46 (1999). “If the terms of the contract are plain and unambiguous, the contract must be enforced as written....” Ryan, ......
- Corley v. State, A98A2018.
-
Strange v. Bartlett, A99A0132.
... ... Compare Allstate Ins. Co. v. Justice, 229 Ga.App. 137, 140(3), 493 S.E.2d 532 (1997) (objections must enable trial court ... ...
-
Insurance - Stephen L. Cotter and Charles M. Mcdaniel, Jr.
...508 S.E.2d at 185. 168. Id. at 807, 508 S.E.2d at 184 (second and third alterations by court). 169. Id. at 808, 508 S.E.2d at 184. 170. 236 Ga. App. 689, 512 S.E.2d 46 (1999). 171. Id. at 690, 512 S.E.2d at 47-48. The court of appeals cited the often-used proposition: if a provision of an i......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - Terrance C. Sullivan, Jason Crawford, and Matthew E. Cook
...S.E.2d at 404. 134. O.C.G.A. Sec. 13-2-2(5) (1981). 135. 246 Ga. App. at 470, 541 S.E.2d at 406 (quoting Peachtree Cas. Ins. Co. v. Kim, 236 Ga. App. 689, 690, 512 S.E.2d 46, 47 (1999)) (citation and punctuation omitted). 136. 247 Ga. App. 331, 542 S.E.2d 607 (2000). 137. Id. at 331-33, 542......