Conklin v. Acceptance Indemnity Ins. Co.

The third-party driver, who caused the accident in question, used the insured car for a purpose that bore no relation to the use granted by the insured, thus, the driver was not a second permittee under the insured's policy.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company Acceptance filed this declaratory judgment action against Kurk Conklin, Howard Jason Chapman, and Alfa Insurance1 asking for a determination that its automotive fleet insurance policy did not provide coverage to Chapman, the driver of the car involved in the underlying lawsuit. Alternatively, Acceptance contended that if coverage was available under the policy, it was limited to the $25,000 minimum liability insurance limits. Acceptance filed a motion for summary judgment that was denied by the trial court; however, the trial court did conclude that coverage was limited to $25,000. In Case No. A10A1424, Conklin appeals that portion of the trial court’s order limiting coverage. In Case No. A10A1425, Acceptance appeals the court’s holding that there was an issue of fact as to whether there was coverage for the accident. For reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s judgment in Case No. A10A1425 and dismiss the appeal in Case No. A10A1424 as moot. “To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.” Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins , 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991. “This Court reviews de novo a trial court’s grant or denial of summary judgment.” Ethridge v. Davis , 243 Ga. App. 11, 12 530 SE2d 477 2000.

So viewed, the record shows that Century Car Corporation Century, a used car dealer, purchased an insurance policy from Acceptance that provided liability coverage for all of Century’s vehicles. The policy provided $1 million in coverage for employees or permissive users, but reduced coverage to $25,000 if a customer was operating the vehicle.

Conklin v. Acceptance Indemnity Ins. Co.

The third-party driver, who caused the accident in question, used the insured car for a purpose that bore no relation to the use granted by the insured, thus, the driver was not a second permittee under the insured's policy.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report