The Superior Court of Floyd County granted the motion for partial summary judgment filed by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company after finding as a matter of law that Cecil Staton “Staton” is not entitled to underinsured motorist “UM” coverage under two automobile insurance policies issued to Staton’s employer.1 Staton appeals, contending that the trial court erred in finding that the policies were unambiguous and in ruling that he is not entitled to “stack” the policies on other coverages. For the following reasons, we reverse.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. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.Citations omitted. BBL-McCarthy, LLC v. Baldwin Paving Co., 285 Ga. App. 494, 494-495 646 SE2d 682 2007. Viewed in the light most favorable to Staton as the nonmovant, the record shows the following. On January 9, 2003, the car that Jessica Williams “Williams” was driving hit the 2001 Chevrolet Suburban that Staton was driving, and Staton was severely injured. Williams’ car was insured under an automobile liability policy issued to her mother, which carried a liability limit of $50,000. The Suburban Staton was driving was owned by his employer, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. “S&H”, a Subchapter S corporation of which Staton was also an officer and the majority shareholder. S&H carried a State Farm insurance policy on the Suburban that included $100,000 per person in UM coverage. S&H owned two other vehicles, a 2002 Volvo S60 and a 2000 Lincoln Navigator, and insured them under separate State Farm policies that also included $100,000 per person of UM coverage. Because Staton’s damages exceed $100,000, the total he might collect from Williams’ liability coverage $50,000 and the UM coverage on the Suburban an additional $50,000, Staton seeks to stack the policies covering the Suburban, the S60, and the Navigator.2
After being served with a copy of Staton’s complaint against Williams and her mother and filing an answer pursuant to OCGA § 33-7-11,3 State Farm filed its motion for partial summary judgment. In that motion, State Farm sought a determination that Staton is a beneficiary only of the UM policy covering S&H’s Suburban and, therefore, Staton cannot stack the policies covering S&H’s other two vehicles. The trial court found that the policies covering the S60 and the Navigator were unambiguous and concluded that Staton was an insured for UM coverage only as to the vehicle he occupied at the time of the accident. As a result, the trial court concluded, Staton cannot stack the policies covering the S60 and the Navigator.
