Roland v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S95G0639,S95G0639 |
| Citation | 265 Ga. 776,462 S.E.2d 623 |
| Parties | ROLAND v. GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
E. Paul Sabiston, Sabiston & Smith, Duard R. McDonald, Marietta, for Roland.
Dennis D. Watson, Watson & Dana, LaFayette, George W. Weaver, Weaver & Weaver, Jasper, for Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.
We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to determine whether a homeowner's insurance policy issued by appellee Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (GFB) required Frances Roland, a named insured, to live at the "residence premises" at the time of the loss in order to be compensated for her claim. We conclude that it did not reverse, in part, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roland, 215 Ga.App. 834, 452 S.E.2d 548 (1994).
Frances and Charles Roland, wife and husband, were both named insureds under the policy which covered their marital home against fire loss from June 13, 1990 to June 13, 1991. Both had resided at the insured residence until October 1990, when the couple separated and Frances moved out of state. Charles continued to occupy the residence. The house was destroyed by fire on March 1, 1991. On March 12, 1991, the Rolands' marriage was terminated pursuant to the entry of a final judgment of divorce.
The policy contains a "special provision" stating that "the residence premises is the only premises where the named insured or spouse maintains a residence other than business or farm properties." GFB denied Frances' claim for coverage on the ground that the policy required her, as a named insured, to live at the insured premises at all times in order for coverage to be effective. 1
The Rolands brought separate suits for payment of their claims, which were joined by order of the trial court. GFB unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment with respect to Frances' claim on the basis that coverage was voided because she did not reside in the house at the time of the loss. At trial, the court directed a verdict in favor of Frances on the issue of liability, and denied GFB's motion for directed verdict on the issue of bad faith penalties and attorney fees. The jury returned a verdict for both Frances and Charles for the insured value of the house and its contents. Both plaintiffs were awarded attorney fees, and a bad faith penalty for refusal to pay Frances' claim was assessed against GFB.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that GFB was entitled as a matter of law to refuse coverage to Frances based on her failure to reside at the insured premises. It also reversed the denial of GFB's motion for directed verdict on the issue of bad faith attorney fees. 2
1. When a contract is unambiguous and capable of only one reasonable interpretation, it is a matter for the court. OCGA § 13-2-1; Carsello v. Touchton, 231 Ga. 878(1), 204 S.E.2d 589 (1974). An unambiguous contract is properly subject to summary disposition. Castellana v. Conyers Toyota, 200 Ga.App. 161, 407 S.E.2d 64 (1991). GFB acknowledges that the loss occurred during the term of the policy and that the Roland home is the "residence premises" described in the declarations page. It submits, however that coverage as to Frances terminated when she relocated to Florida.
The Court of Appeals agreed, basing its decision on Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Kephart, 211 Ga.App. 423, 439 S.E.2d 682 (1993). Although the identical special provision was at issue in Kephart, the case is factually dissimilar and does not control. Mrs. Kephart and her husband had divorced one month prior to a fire which damaged the insured premises. At the time of the loss, Mrs. Kephart was the sole named insured under the policy. Coverage was properly denied under the special provision requiring residency because the named insured (Mrs. Kephart) no longer resided in the house, and although Mr. Kephart continued to live there, he was no longer her spouse at the time of the loss. The plain language of the GFB policy unambiguously requires that "the named insured or spouse" live at the insured premises in order to maintain coverage under the policy.
Charles Roland was both a named insured and the spouse of a named insured at the time of the loss. Based on the policy language, Frances could have reasonably anticipated that her coverage continued while she or Charles lived in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Old Republic Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. RM Kids, LLC.
...omitted).44 Griffin , 302 Ga.App. at 731 (2) (b), 691 S.E.2d 633 (punctuation omitted).45 See Roland v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. , 265 Ga. 776, 778, 462 S.E.2d 623 (1995) (affirming trial court's directed verdict in favor of insured on coverage claim but, nonetheless, also affirming co......
-
Duncan v. Integon General Ins. Corp.
...be strictly construed against Integon and in accordance with the reasonable expectations of Ms. Duncan. Roland v. Ga. Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co., 265 Ga. 776, 778(1), 462 S.E.2d 623 (1995). The weight of authority is that, in the absence of an express policy provision to the contrary, "a medic......
-
Dunn v. Columbia Nat'l Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-0246-RWS
...be construed liberally in favor of the insured, even when there is no ambiguity in the language. See Roland v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 265 Ga. 776, 462 S.E.2d 623, 625 (1995).Here, Patterson worked as a plumber's foreman for Lawson. At the onset of his employment, he was given a ......
-
FLORIDA INTERN. INDEM. CO. v. Osgood
...the jury") (citations and punctuation omitted). 18. Williamson, supra, 220 Ga. at 325, 138 S.E.2d 668. 19. Roland v. Ga. Farm Bureau, etc., 265 Ga. 776, 778(2), 462 S.E.2d 623 (1995) (doubtful question justified refusal to pay; directed verdict required); Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. Law, 223 ......
-
Insurance - Ralph F. Simpson
...Id., 482 S.E.2d at 326. 109. Id. 110. Id. 111. Id. at 646-47, 482 S.E.2d at 326 (citing Roland v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 265 Ga. 776, 462 S.E.2d 623 (1995)). 112. Id. at 647,482 S.E.2d at 326 (emphasis added) (quoting 8A appleman, insurance Law and Practice, p. 25, Sec. 4903.65 ......
-
The Aftermath of Catastrophes: Valuing Business Interruption Insurance Losses
...insurance policies broadly to protect the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured); Roland v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 462 S.E.2d 623, 625 (Ga. 1995) ("A contract of insurance should be strictly construed against the insurer and read in favor of coverage in accordance with ......
-
Insurance - Ralph F. Simpson
...204. Id. 205. Id. at 433-34, 469 S.E.2d at 203. 206. Id. at 433, 469 S.E.2d at 203. 207. Id. at 433-34, 469 S.E.2d at 202-03. 208. 265 Ga. 776, 462 S.E.2d 623 (1995). 209. The typical provision reads as follows: We cover: 1. Your dwelling, including the structures attached to it, at the res......
-
CHAPTER § 5.02 Basic Insurance Concepts
...2011).[19] 2 Plitt et al., Couch on Insurance § 22:11 (3d ed. Dec. 2018 Update).[20] Id.[21] Roland v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 462 S.E.2d 623, 625 (Ga. 1995) (stating that "[a] contract of insurance should be strictly construed against the insurer and read in favor of coverage in acc......