Allstate Ins. Co. v. Spillers

Under the circumstances of this case, a reasonable person could conclude that defendant used the insured vehicle with the policy holder's permission.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case arose from a declaratory judgment action filed by Allstate Insurance Company to determine if it owed any duty of defense or coverage to Randall Dean Spillers as a result of an automobile collision he was involved in with Kimberly Jackson. In an order dated December 2000, the superior court determined that Spillers was a permissive user of the vehicle and that Allstate’s policy provided coverage. Allstate appealed that determination and in Allstate v. Spillers , 252 Ga. App. 26 555 SE2d 489 2001, this court determined that the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard in concluding that there was coverage. Accordingly, this court vacated the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case for reconsideration under the proper legal standard. Id. On remand, the superior court determined that Spillers was a permissive user of the vehicle and was covered under the Allstate policy. Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment and Allstate again appeals. For the following reasons, we agree with the superior court’s conclusion and affirm.

The facts out of which this appeal arises were fully set forth by this court in Allstate v. Spillers , 252 Ga. App. at 27. To summarize the relevant facts, some of which were stipulated by the parties: Spillers bought a Ford Mustang in 1995. After having his license suspended and facing various financial issues, he fell behind in making the car payments. To avoid having the car repossessed, Spillers’s father agreed to refinance the car and make the payments and have Spillers repay him directly. Although Spillers’s father thought that the finance company was going to transfer title to the car to his name, the car title did not transfer, but remained in Spillers’s name. Id.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Spillers

Under the circumstances of this case, a reasonable person could conclude that defendant used the insured vehicle with the policy holder's permission.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report