American Strategic Insurance v. Helm
327 Ga. App. 482
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- On May 26, 2012 William Helm drove a 2003 EZGO four-seat motorized golf cart that struck and injured Tracy Self in Peachtree City, Georgia.
- Helm held a homeowner’s policy issued by American Strategic Insurance Corp. (ASI) effective June 2, 2011–June 2, 2012; ASI concedes the accident occurred during the policy term.
- The Policy’s Section II excluded motor vehicle liability unless the vehicle was a motorized golf cart "designed to carry up to 4 persons."
- A Georgia Special Provision Endorsement replaced that language with an exclusion applying unless the cart was "designed to carry up to 2 persons," among other requirements.
- Selfs sued Helm for negligence; ASI filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the policy excluded coverage for Helm’s four-seat cart. Trial court denied ASI’s summary judgment and granted the Selfs’ summary judgment; ASI appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the endorsement’s phrase "designed to carry up to 2 persons" unambiguously excludes coverage for a four-seat golf cart | Selfs: A reasonable insured could read "up to 2 persons" as a minimum requirement (i.e., carts must seat at least two to be covered), so the endorsement is ambiguous and coverage exists | ASI: "Up to" sets a maximum; endorsement plainly excludes carts designed for more than two persons, so no coverage for Helm’s four-seater | The phrase is ambiguous in context; ambiguities are construed against insurer and in favor of insured, so policy provides coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Bartley, 321 Ga. App. 59 (discusses de novo review of summary judgment)
- Hurst v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 266 Ga. 712 (insurance contracts governed by plain-meaning rules; parties bound by unambiguous terms)
- Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Univ. of Ga. Athletic Assn., Inc., 288 Ga. App. 355 (ambiguous policy provisions resolved against insurer)
- Kerr-McGee Corp. v. Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co., 256 Ga. App. 458 (reasonable insured’s understanding controls; ambiguity if multiple reasonable constructions exist)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Rucker Constr., 285 Ga. App. 844 (adjuster/insurer interpretation can show how a reasonable insured would understand language)