Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Boatwright

Jury questions remain as to whether the insurer properly canceled tortfeasor's insurance contract for failure to pay insurance premiums.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Atlanta Casualty Company appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.1 In the underlying declaratory judgment action Atlanta Casualty sought to avoid coverage on an automobile policy issued to defendant Daryl McPherson on two grounds: 1 its cancellation of the insurance contract; and 2 the tortfeasor’s failure to notify it of the claim or to cooperate, thereby breaching the insurance contract. Because questions of fact remain as to whether Atlanta Casualty properly canceled the insurance contract, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Atlanta Casualty’s motion for summary judgment and reverse the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

We review de novo a trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Bandy v. Mills, 216 Ga. App. 407 454 SE2d 610 1995. 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. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions, and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff’s case. The burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 405 SE2d 474 1991.

Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Boatwright

Jury questions remain as to whether the insurer properly canceled tortfeasor's insurance contract for failure to pay insurance premiums.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report