Assaf v. Cincinnati Insurance
327 Ga. App. 475
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Assaf, insured by Cincinnati, sought excess UM coverage of $1,000,000 under Cincinnati’s umbrella policy after a 2009 accident.
- The umbrella policy did not expressly provide excess UM coverage, and a form rejecting excess UM coverage bore Assaf’s forged or contested signature.
- Assaf alleged L&S acted as dual agent for Cincinnati and Assaf; Cincinnati argued it could rely on the application and that Assaf failed to read the policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati, concluding no genuine issues of material fact and limiting recovery to $100,000 UM.
- On appeal, the court found genuine issues of material fact remained regarding signature authenticity and dual agency, reversing the summary judgment.
- Georgia law required UM coverage equal to liability limits unless there was a valid written rejection, and the issue included whether coverage could be implied by operation of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Assaf's signature on the excess UM rejection form is authentic | Assaf contends the signature was forged by Chastain. | Cincinnati relies on the application’s apparent rejection despite Assaf's claim of forgery. | Genuine issues of material fact remain. |
| Whether L&S was a dual agent for Cincinnati and Assaf so Cincinnati’s knowledge could bind liability | L&S acted for both Cincinnati and Assaf, imputed to Cincinnati if misrepresentation occurred. | L&S as independent broker limits Cincinnati’s liability unless proven dual agency. | Genuine issues of material fact remain. |
| Whether UM coverage is implied by operation of law if the rejection is not valid in writing | If no valid written rejection, UM coverage is implied up to liability limits. | Insurer may rely on apparent rejection even if forged, limiting excess UM liability. | Genuine issues of material fact remain. |
| Whether Assaf’s failure to read the policy bars or limits his claims, or whether reformation is appropriate | Failure to inspect does not bar contract reformation or recovery of implied coverage. | Failure to read can bar some contract claims, but reformation jurisdiction exists in superior court. | Genuine issues of material fact remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 176 Ga. App. 140 (Ga. App. 1985) (dual agent misrepresentation can bind the other principal in contract)
- Woodcraft by MacDonald v. Ga. Cas. and Sur. Co., 293 Ga. 9 (Ga. 2013) (summary judgment standard and evidenced-based review)
- Wilson v. The Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 293 Ga. 251 (Ga. 2013) (UM coverage and related policy interpretations under Georgia law)
- Abrohams v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Agency, 282 Ga. App. 176 (Ga. App. 2006) (equitable relief and jurisdiction considerations in insurance contract disputes)
- Canal Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 189 Ga. App. 681 (Ga. App. 1988) (agent authority and insurer liability where broker representations unclear)
- Pritchett (Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pritchett), 220 Ga. App. 430 (Ga. App. 1995) (interpretation of UM exclusions and related coverage disputes)