Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co.

The evidence showed an unjustifiable and unreasonable failure to comply with the notice provisions of the defendant's insurance policy, after the plaintiff suffered a catastrophic brain stem injury when he fell from a collapsing ladder while working as a water technician with the defendant's insured.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

James Matthew Hoover filed the instant action against Maxum Indemnity Company, seeking to recover under an insurance policy issued by Maxum to its insured, Emergency Water Extraction Services, LLC “EWES”. Hoover’s complaint alleged that Maxum’s policy provided coverage for the bodily injuries he sustained during an accident, and that Maxum breached its duties to defend EWES and to indemnify his claim for compensation. Maxum denied Hoover’s allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Hoover’s claim was not covered under its policy since timely notice of the occurrence had not been given, and since a policy exclusion applied. Hoover filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending that Maxum was liable for breach of the duty to defend as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motions filed by both parties, finding that Maxum had breached a duty to defend EWES against the underlying claim, but did not breach a duty to indemnify since there was noncompliance with the policy’s notice requirements. These cross-appeals ensued. We conclude that the evidence established an unreasonable failure to give timely notice as required by the policy, and therefore, Maxum was not obligated to provide either a defense or coverage. Accordingly, in Case No. A11A0284, we affirm the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Maxum. In Case No. A11A0285, however, we reverse the trial court’s decision granting partial summary judgment to Hoover as to the duty to defend claim.

“Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Citation omitted. Kay-Lex Co. v. Essex Ins. Co. , 286 Ga. App. 484, 485 649 SE2d 602 2007.

Hoover v. Maxum Indemnity Co.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report