Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Ferguson

Since O.C.G.A. § 33-24-45 regulates the cancellation of automobile insurance policies, the plaintiff could not rely on O.C.G.A. § 33-24-7 or cases construing that statute to retrospectively void a policy based on misrepresentations relating to its inception.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Liberty Insurance Corporation appeals the denial of its request for declaratory relief. Liberty had sought to ascertain whether it had a contractual obligation to provide liability coverage under an automobile insurance policy, notwithstanding its insured’s concealment of material facts when applying for the policy and despite the availability of other coverage to the injured third party. Liberty appeals the grant of summary judgment against it. On March 7, 1997, Lillie McQuaide applied to Liberty for an automobile insurance policy. On the application, McQuaide requested coverage for two cars, designating only herself and her daughter, Lisa Mitchell, as the operators. As required, McQuaide disclosed information about her own and Mitchell’s traffic convictions and accidents. Nowhere on the application did McQuaide list her son, Darrin Mashburn, who was also living with her, as an operator of either vehicle. It is undisputed that McQuaide knew about her son’s spotty driving record that included charges against Mashburn for driving without a license, reckless driving, speeding, two DUI’s, and failure to maintain lane. McQuaide also knew that Mashburn had been charged in September 1994 with leaving the scene of an accident and driving on a suspended license.

Just above the signature line, the application stated: “it is understood and agreed that any policy issued . . . is based on the statements contained herein. I further agree that this policy shall be null and void if these answers are false or given with the intent to deceive or materially affect the acceptance of the risk assumed by Liberty Mutual.” Liberty approved McQuaide’s application and issued a policy that included $100,000 in liability insurance for bodily injury.

Liberty Ins. Corp. v. Ferguson

Since O.C.G.A. § 33-24-45 regulates the cancellation of automobile insurance policies, the plaintiff could not rely on O.C.G.A. § 33-24-7 or cases construing that statute to retrospectively void a policy based on misrepresentations relating to its inception.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report