Scott v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

The insurer failed to carry its burden to prove that its insureds were not entitled to coverage for any claim arising under the auto insurance policy, since the insurer did not support its motion for summary judgment with a copy of the underlying wrongful death complaint.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On April 9, 2006, Vanessa Smith was driving a car owned by her sister, Falisha Scott and Falisha’s husband, Raymond Scott, when she was involved in a three-car collision, resulting in the death of Constance Daniel “Constance”. The Scotts’s automobile insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company “GEICO” brought this declaratory judgment action against the Scotts, Smith, Romona Daniel, Constance’s mother and Administrator of her estate, and other individuals involved in the accident, seeking a judgment, inter alia, that it had no obligation to provide coverage to the defendants or to indemnify them for any claims arising out of the accident. GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. As these appeals arise out of the same summary judgment order, we have consolidated them for disposition on appeal. In Case No. A10A0220, the Scotts appeal from the trial court’s summary judgment order, arguing that the trial court erred in i granting summary judgment to GEICO because they are “insureds” under the policy, and no exclusion or condition precluded coverage to them for any claims arising out of the accident, and ii denying their motion to amend the summary judgment order. In Case No. A10A0221, Romona Daniel “Daniel”, Constance’s estate, Courtney Daniel, and Princeton Daniel collectively, “the Daniels” appeal, contending that i the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment to GEICO despite its request to continue the motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-56 f, and ii genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Smith was an insured under the policy.

In Case No. A10A0221, we affirm because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Daniels’s motion for continuance and GEICO was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the Daniels. In Case No. A10A0220, we reverse in light of GEICO’s failure to carry its burden on summary judgment to prove that the Scotts were not entitled to coverage for any claim arising under the policy.

Scott v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

The insurer failed to carry its burden to prove that its insureds were not entitled to coverage for any claim arising under the auto insurance policy, since the insurer did not support its motion for summary judgment with a copy of the underlying wrongful death complaint.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report