332 Ga. App. 684
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Belus emigrated from Romania in 1986 and formed Express Auto Transport in 2002.
- They procured multiple insurance policies through Cottingham & Butler (C&B) after asking for broad coverage.
- Lloyd’s cargo policy provided to cover cargo lost or damaged during operations.
- A fire damaged vehicles; Lloyd’s paid some amounts but refused defense costs citing policy terms.
- District court held Lloyd’s could act to defend; trial court denied summary judgment; appellate court granted interlocutory review.
- Court affirms summary judgment denial, finding issues of mutual reliance and policy interpretation genuine questions of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to procure vs. read policy | Belus relied on C&B’s expertise to determine coverage. | C&B merely procured insurance; no expert advice relied upon. | Question of fact on reliance survives. |
| Readiness of defense obligation in policy language | Policy language unambiguously implied a duty to defend. | Policy grants option to defend; no duty stated. | Jury question exists on whether lack of coverage was readily apparent. |
| Expertise exception scope | Expertise exception applies if agent determines amount/type of coverage and insured relies. | Exception should be narrow as argued by C&B. | Exception may apply; overlooked by trial court; facts create triable issue. |
| Readiness of readily apparent coverage | Had insured understood policy language, defense duty could be inferred. | Plain language should have been evident to insured; no duty. | Jury question on clarity of policy language remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner, Wood & Smith v. Reed, 169 Ga. App. 213 (1983) (insured duty to read except in expert reliance scenarios)
- McCoury v. Allstate Ins. Co., 254 Ga. App. 27 (2002) (reliance on agent’s expertise can create duty exception)
- Hunt v. Greenway Ins. Agency, 213 Ga. App. 14 (1994) (no expertise exception where no discretion by agent)
- Fregeau v. Hall, 196 Ga. App. 493 (1990) (expertise exception when agent performs additional service)
- Traina Enterprises v. Cord & Wilburn, Inc., 289 Ga. App. 833 (2008) (reliance on agent’s risk assessment and coverage recommendations)
- MacIntyre & Edwards, Inc. v. Rich, 267 Ga. App. 78 (2004) (readiness/clarity of policy changes in context of defense duty)
- Jim Anderson & Co. v. ParTraining Corp., 216 Ga. App. 344 (1995) (fact-specific inquiry on agent discretion and reliance)
- Atlanta Women’s Club v. Washburne, 207 Ga. App. 3 (1992) (analysis of whether policy language renders coverage readily apparent)